www.npeo-kmi.com
Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress
2015
Naval Readiness On March 26, Vice Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Michelle Howard testified to the House Armed Services Committee’s Subcommittee on Readiness about the Navy’s 21st-century readiness posture.
Ronald O’Rourke, Specialist in Naval Affairs The DDG-51 program was initiated in the late 1970s. The DDG-51 is a multimission destroyer with an emphasis on air defense (which the Navy refers to as anti-air warfare, or AAW) and blue-water (mid-ocean) operations. DDG-51s, like the Navy’s 22 Ticonderoga- (CG-47) class cruisers, are equipped with the Aegis combat system, an integrated ship combat system named for the mythological shield that defended Zeus. CG-47s and DDG-51s consequently are often referred to as Aegis cruisers and Aegis destroyers, respectively, or collectively as Aegis ships. The Aegis system has been updated several times over the years. Existing DDG-51s (and also some CG-47s) are being modified to receive an additional capability for ballistic missile defense (BMD) operations. The first DDG-51 was procured in FY85. A total of 72 have been procured through FY15, including 62 in FY85-FY05 and 10 in FY10-16. During the period FY06-FY09, the Navy procured three Zumwalt- (DDG-1000) class destroyers (see discussion below) rather than DDG51s. The first DDG-51 entered service in 1991, and a total of 62 were in service as of the end of FY14. DDG-51s are built by General Dynamics Bath Iron Works (GD/ BIW) of Bath, Maine, and Ingalls Shipbuilding of Pascagoula, Miss., a division of Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII). The DDG-51 design has been modified over time. The first 28 DDG-51s (i.e., DDGs 51 through 78) are called Flight I/II DDG-51s. Subsequent ships in the class (i.e., DDGs 79 and higher) are referred to
as Flight IIA DDG-51s. The Flight IIA design, first procured in FY94, implemented a significant design change that included, among other things, the addition of a helicopter hangar. The Flight IIA design has a full load displacement of about 9,500 tons, which is similar to that of the CG-47. The Navy is implementing a program for modernizing all DDG-51s (and CG-47s) so as to maintain their mission and cost effectiveness out to the end of their projected service lives. Older CRS reports provide additional historical and background information on the DDG-51 program. Procurement of First Flight III DDG-51 Planned for FY16 The Navy wants to begin procuring a new version of the DDG-51 design, called the Flight III design, starting with the second of the two ships scheduled for procurement in FY16. The Flight III design
Chairman Wittman, Ranking Member Bordallo and distinguished members of the House Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify on the current state of Navy readiness and the resources necessary to provide a ready Navy in the future as described in our fiscal year 2016 budget request. As we meet, the Navy and our sister services have entered a third year of fiscal uncertainty. In addition, new threats to our nation’s interests are emerging, and old tensions are surfacing. Today, it is my honor to represent all our active and reserve sailors, particularly the 41,000 sailors who are under way on ships and submarines or deployed in expeditionary roles overseas today. They are standing the watch and are ready to meet today’s security challenges. American citizens can take great pride in the daily contributions of their sons and daughters who serve in Navy units around the world. We are where it matters, when it matters, ensuring the security that underpins the global economy and responding to crises. Last August, the George H.W. Bush carrier strike group, already forward present in the North Arabian Sea, quickly relocated to the North Arabian Gulf. Flying 20 to 30 combat sorties per day, this Navy-Marine Corps strike fighter team was the only coalition strike option to project power against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) from the skies over Iraq and Syria for 54 days. Similarly, USS Truxton (DDG-103) arrived in the Black Sea to establish U.S. presence and reassure allies a week after Russia invaded Crimea. In the Java Sea, USS Fort Worth (LCS-3), a littoral combat ship, and USS Sampson (DDG-102), a destroyer, were among the first to support the Indonesian-led search effort for Air Asia Flight 8501. This forward
Continued On pAGE 11 ➥ Continued On pAGE 21 ➥
www.npeo-kmi.com
april 07, 2015
g:
Publication
s in e ud s n cl n io In fe at De ov n in
A
07 Apr
Plus: • USS Maryland Undocks • laser eye protection
Table of Contents Editorial
Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
Jonathan Magin jonathanm@kmimediagroup.com
Editor
Naval Readiness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
Managing Editor
DDG 51 Class Destroyer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Copy Editor
MH-60S Seahawk Test Aircraft Contract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
Harrison Donnelly harrisond@kmimediagroup.com Crystal Jones crystalj@kmimediagroup.com Correspondents
J.B. Bissell • Kasey Chisholm • Catherine Day Michael Frigand • Nora McGann
Art & Design Art Director
Jennifer Owers jennifero@kmimediagroup.com Ads and Materials Manager
Experts Discuss Maritime Power, International Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Ingalls Shipbuilding Awarded $604.3 Million Contract to Build DDG 121 . . . . . . 4 USS Peleliu Decommissioned After 34 Years of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Littoral Combat Ships Contract Modification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 National Cutter Boat Pooling Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
Jittima Saiwongnuan jittimas@kmimediagroup.com
CNO Stresses Versatility of Independence-Class LCS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Senior Graphic Designer
Scott Morris scottm@kmimediagroup.com
Laser Eye Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Graphic Designers
USNS Fall River Repairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Andrea Herrera andreah@kmimediagroup.com Amanda Paquette amandak@kmimediagroup.com
KMI Media Group Chief Executive Officer
Jack Kerrigan jack@kmimediagroup.com Publisher and Chief Financial Officer
PEO U&W Industry Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Light Weight Wide Aperture Array and Wide Aperture Array Software Development and Engineering Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Constance Kerrigan connik@kmimediagroup.com
Norfolk Naval Shipyard Undocks USS Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Editor-In-Chief
Contracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Controller
Innovations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Jeff McKaughan jeffm@kmimediagroup.com Gigi Castro gcastro@kmimediagroup.com Trade Show Coordinator
Exclusive Subscriber Content
Holly Foster hollyf@kmimediagroup.com
Operations, Circulation & Production Operations Administrator
Bob Lesser bobl@kmimediagroup.com Circulation & Marketing Administrator
Duane Ebanks duanee@kmimediagroup.com Circulation
Subscribers to Navy Air/Sea receive exclusive weekly content. This week’s exclusive content includes: •
Denise Woods denisew@kmimediagroup.com
•
Subscription Information
A report from the Department of Defense Inspector General finding that it did not reconcile its Fund Balance With Treasury account effectively, and providing recommendations for resolving the problem. An account of the Navy’s newly launched Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) website, which provides training and resources about preventing and reporting sexual assault.
Navy Air/Sea is published 50 times a year by KMI Media Group. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction without permission is strictly forbidden. © Copyright 2015
Calendar of Events
Corporate Offices
KMI Media Group 15800 Crabbs Branch Way, Suite 300 Rockville, MD 20855-2604 USA Telephone: (301) 670-5700 Fax: (301) 670-5701 Web: www.NPEO-kmi.com
2
|
April 07, 2015
April 12-15, 2015 Sea-Air-Space National Harbor, Md. www.seaairspace.org
May 5-7, 2015 AUVSI’s Unmanned Systems Atlanta, Ga. www.auvsishow.org/auvsi2015
April 22, 2015 NRO Industry Day Chantilly, Va. www.afcea.org/events/nro/15/
June 23-25, 2015 Mega Rust Newport News, Va. www.navalengineers.org
www.npeo-kmi.com
DDG 51 Class Destroyer The U.S. Navy has awarded funding for the construction of DDG 122, the fiscal year 2015 Arleigh Burke-class destroyer under contract at General Dynamics Bath Iron Works, a business unit of General Dynamics. This $610.4 million contract modification fully funds this ship and was awarded in 2013 as part of a multiship competition for DDG 51 class destroyers. The total value of the five-ship contract is approximately $3.4 billion. Fred Harris, president of Bath Iron Works, said, “This announcement allows us to continue efforts associated with planning and construction of DDG 122. We appreciate the leadership of Senators Collins and King and the strong support of our entire delegation in matters of national defense. We are grateful for their recognition of the contributions made by the people of BIW to the U.S. Navy’s important shipbuilding programs.” There are currently three DDG 51 destroyers in production at Bath Iron Works, Rafael Peralta (DDG 115), Thomas Hudner (DDG 116) and Daniel Inouye (DDG 118). The shipyard began fabrication on DDG 115 in November 2011, and delivery to the Navy is scheduled for 2016. Fabrication
on DDG 116 began in November 2012, and that ship is scheduled to be delivered to the Navy in 2017. Fabrication has just begun on DDG 118, the first ship of the 2013 multiship award. Bath Iron Works is also building the three ships in the planned three-vessel Zumwalt-class of destroyers, Zumwalt (DDG 1000), Michael Monsoor (DDG 1001) and Lyndon Johnson (DDG 1002). The Arleigh Burke-class destroyer is a multimission combatant that offers defense against a wide range of threats, including ballistic missiles. It operates in support of carrier battle groups, surface action groups, amphibious groups and replenishment groups, providing a complete array of anti-submarine (ASW), anti-air (AAW) and anti-surface (ASUW) capabilities. Designed for survivability, the ships incorporate all-steel construction and have gas turbine propulsion. The combination of the ships’ AEGIS combat system, the Vertical Launching System, an advanced ASW system, two embarked SH-60 helicopters, advanced anti-aircraft missiles and Tomahawk anti-ship and land-attack missiles make the Arleigh Burke class the most powerful surface combatant ever put to sea.
MH-60S Seahawk Test Aircraft Contract Elbit Systems of America, LLC, a subsidiary of Elbit Systems Ltd., was awarded a contract from Science Applications International Corporation to install, integrate and support flight evaluations of the Elbit Color Helmet Display and Tracking System (CHDTS) on MH-60S Seahawk test aircraft for the U.S. Navy. The contract value, which is in an amount that is not material to Elbit Systems, will be performed over a year. The program is part of the U.S. Navy’s MH-60 Sierra’s Improved Targeting System
www.npeo-kmi.com
for the Seahawks’ Armed Helicopter Weapon Kits. The CHDTS will provide the pilots with both night and day capability to see color flight instrument symbols on their helmet-mounted display (HMD) modules. Additionally, the line-of-sight tracking system enables the pilots to interact with the flight navigation system, improves pilot and copilot situational awareness, and can also be used to control pilot or copilot slewable sensor systems. The system also presents a continuously calculated weapon
impact symbol for the pilot display, thus increasing system accuracy in the employment of installed weapon systems. “We are pleased to provide U.S. naval aviators the CHDTS for their aircraft,” commented Raanan Horowitz, president and CEO of Elbit Systems of America. “The CHDTS will provide pilots with improved situational awareness through enhanced optics and symbology displayed directly on their HMDs, allowing them to keep their eyes up and out.”
april 07, 2015
|
3
Experts Discuss Maritime Power, International Security Maritime security leaders gathered at U.S. Naval War College (NWC) in Newport, R.I., March 25-26, to focus global military attention on seapower during the EMC Chair Symposium, “Maritime Power and International Security.” Experts from the military, academia, national security, corporate interests, United Nations, government and nongovernmental organizations took part in the two-day event, which focused on power projection, deterrence, humanitarian assistance, special operations and security and strategies. “NWC is home to Navy thought, and Naval War College should be leading the Navy and the nation on maritime issues,” said Derek Reveron, EMC chair, professor in national security affairs and organizer of the annual event. “This conference gives us the opportunity to do that.” The symposium was timed to coincide with the March 13 release of a new maritime strategy by the U.S. sea services titled, “A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower: Forward, Engaged, Ready.”
The new maritime security, released by the U.S. Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard, outlines maritime priorities in support of the national interest. It replaces a similar 2007 document and accounts for changes in the global security environment, new strategic guidance and a changed fiscal environment. One of the areas highlighted at the symposium, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, is already being explored by experts from NWC and Harvard University. The two schools currently exchange faculty to discuss this topic and bring two different perspectives to the subject. “As the number of humanitarian disasters expands (some due to natural disasters, others to conflict), we can expect that increased civilmilitary engagement will be required to meet the life-saving needs of affected populations,” said Vincenzo Bollettino, executive director of the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative, who was a member of the Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief panel at the symposium. “It is imperative that we begin more systematic study of
civil-military engagement, both to help guide normative discussions about civil-military interaction as well as to inform conversations related to the efficiency of the response,” he added. Both military and civilian groups are needed to assist when large disasters happen, according to Bollettino. “Today’s humanitarian emergencies, particularly complex emergencies that entail aspects of natural disasters and conflict, require that both military and humanitarian actors better train for and participate in conversations about civil-military engagement,” he said. “These conversations should be taking place in multiple fora (military, academic, humanitarian) and in various countries.” Another aspect of maritime power was discussed in the power projection session, where a panelist focused on the changing nature of the challenges faced by the country. “I think the biggest challenge facing the U.S. military is to adjust to the rise of small, smart and cheap weapons systems,” said T.X. Hammes, distinguished research fellow at National
Defense University, Washington, D.C., and panelist at the symposium. “Poor nations and even small groups will have access to precision, long-range weapons in significant numbers. Thus our base areas, supply convoys, fuel dumps, ammo dumps, and air and sea ports will be subject to attack. We have to figure out how to deal with this type of threat.” The symposium touches on many aspects of maritime power in just a few days. Reveron says that addressing all of these issues in a short time is not intended to solve the problems, but to serve as a platform for the experts to think about the issues that will eventually lead to answers. “This event will help me and my colleagues think through these important issues and serves as an incubator for ideas,” said Reveron. Reveron also said one of his aims is to encourage attendees to write about maritime issues after the event and hope they incorporate some of the discussion points into their own writings. By Daniel Kuester, U.S. Naval War College Public Affairs
Ingalls Shipbuilding Awarded $604.3 Million Contract to Build DDG 121 Huntington Ingalls Industries’ Ingalls Shipbuilding division has received a $604.3 million contract modification to fund construction of the Arleigh Burke-class (DDG 51) Aegis guided missile destroyer DDG 121 for the U.S. Navy. The ship is the third of five DDG 51 destroyers the company was awarded in June 2013. “The DDG 51 program has been the backbone of Ingalls Shipbuilding for the past three decades,” said DDG 51 Program Manager George Nungesser. “We now have a hot production line in the shipyard where we can maintain our highly skilled shipbuilding crews in the same working areas for each ship. This will allow increased learning and provide the most efficient way to reduce cost and schedule while building quality ships for the U.S. Navy. We have a lot of experience and talent throughout our program, and with the facilities to build ships simultaneously, we will continue to improve as each ship is launched.”
4
|
April 07, 2015
The five-ship contract, part of a multiyear procurement in the DDG 51 program, allows Ingalls to build ships more efficiently by buying bulk material and moving the skilled workforce from ship to ship. With the contract, Ingalls will be building DDGs over the next decade. Ingalls has delivered 28 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers to the Navy. Destroyers currently under construction at Ingalls are John Finn (DDG 113), Ralph Johnson (DDG 114), Paul Ignatius (DDG 117) and Delbert D. Black (DDG 119). Arleigh Burke-class destroyers are highly capable, multimission ships that can conduct a variety of operations, from peacetime presence and crisis management to sea control and power projection, all in support of the U.S. military strategy. DDGs are capable of simultaneously fighting air, surface and subsurface threats. The ship contains a myriad of offensive and defensive weapons designed to support maritime defense needs well into the 21st century.
www.npeo-kmi.com
USS Peleliu Decommissioned After 34 Years of Service Hundreds of current and former crew members, 10 previous commanding officers and their family members crowded onto the flight deck of the amphibious assault ship USS Peleliu (LHA 5) to bid farewell to the “Iron Nickel” during the ship’s decommissioning ceremony at Naval Base San Diego, March 31. Tears wet the eyes of many of the former sailors and Marines in attendance as the flag was hauled down, the watch was secured, and the crew of one of the most famous ships in the U.S. Navy’s Pacific Fleet ceremoniously disembarked the vessel for the final time. Peleliu was named after the September 15 to November 27, 1944 Battle of Peleliu, in which 1,256 Marines gave their lives to take the island, which was being held by the Imperial Japanese Army. Rear Admiral Marcus A. Hitchcock, the current director of Fleet and Joint Training at U.S. Fleet Forces Command, was the ship’s 18th command-
www.npeo-kmi.com
ing officer from March 2008 to September 2009 and served as the guest speaker for the ceremony. Hitchcock talked not only about his time as commanding officer, but also about how he read many books and studied up on the ship’s namesake when he received orders to become the ship’s commanding officer. In addition, he spoke about howhe was fortunate enough to host a ship’s tour in the summer of 2009 for Marine veterans from the actual Battle of Peleliu. “These marines had seen and done extraordinary things on a remote island called Peleliu. Like millions of their generation, they were committed to keeping America free,” said Hitchcock. “They came to represent grit and determination. It was fighting men like these for which this warship is named.” Hitchcock also thanked all the plankowners and former crew members in attendance for their service to the ship over the past 34 years.
Rear Admiral Marcus A. Hitchcock, director of fleet and joint training for U.S. Fleet Forces Command, offers three cheers during the decommissioning ceremony for the amphibious assault ship USS Peleliu (LHA 5) at Naval Base San Diego. Peleliu is being decommissioned after more than 34 years of service. After the decommissioning process is complete, Peleliu will be towed from San Diego to Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, to join the reserve fleet. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Antonio P. Turretto Ramos)
“From that first deployment onward, USS Peleliu and her crew demonstrated time and again that she always achieved the mission, to perfection, with style and in ways that had never been seen before,” said Hitchcock. “Except on rare occasions, USS Peleliu never did it alone. She always had a teammate by her side—the U.S. Marine Corps.” To close his remarks, Hitchcock led the audience in three cheers to mark the grit and determination of all the sailors and marines who served on board Peleliu during her years of service. Captain Paul C. Spedero, Peleliu’s last commanding officer, read the decommissioning orders and gave the order to disembark the ship. “From deputy chief of naval operations to commanding officer, USS Peleliu, subject, decommissioning of USS Peleliu,” read Spedero. “On 31 March, 2015, decommission USS Peleliu and transfer to the inactive reserve.
Executive officer, disembark the crew.” During 34 years of service, Peleliu was homeported in both Long Beach and San Diego on the California coast as thousands of sailors and Marines called the ship home. Capable of launching a coordinated air and sea attack from one platform, Peleliu conducted 17 deployments, 178,051 flight operations, served 57,983 personnel and steamed approximately 1,011,946 nautical miles since being commissioned May 3, 1980 in Pascagoula, Miss. After the decommissioning process is complete, Peleliu will be towed from San Diego to Hawaii to join the Navy’s reserve fleet. There, the last-ofits-class amphibious assault ship will take its place alongside its sister ship and first in class, the ex-USS Tarawa (LHA 1). By Senior Chief Mass Communication Specialist (SW/AW) Donnie W. Ryan
april 07, 2015
|
5
Littoral Combat Ships Contract Modification U.S. Navy has issued a Lockheed Martin-led industry team a contract modification for one fully funded 2015 littoral combat ship (LCS) valued at $362 million, along with $79 million in advanced procurement funding for a second ship. The balance of the second ship will be funded by December 31, 2015. The advanced procurement dollars approved by Congress provides the funding required to maintain the cost and schedule of the final block buy option. The award also includes a priced option for one additional fiscal year 2016 ship. “We are proud to continue this partnership with the Navy in building the advanced Freedom-variant littoral combat ship, and we thank the Navy for maintaining the cost and schedule for the block buy,” said Joe North, vice president of Littoral Ship Systems at Lockheed Martin Mission Systems and
Training. “Thousands of people across the country contribute to this important program and will continue to do so as we transition to the new frigate upgrade in the coming years.” The award comes as USS Freedom conducted a successful deployment to southeast Asia in 2013 and is currently operating out of her homeport in San Diego, Calif., while USS Fort Worth is deployed until 2016. USS Fort Worth is serving in the U.S. 7th Fleet to strengthen international relationships, visit more ports, engage in multiregional naval exercises and further LCS capabilities using both manned and unmanned assets. The contract modification is for construction of LCS 21 and LCS 23, the 11th and 12th Freedom-variant ships. The first ship on this 2010 contract, the Milwaukee (LCS 5), was christened and launched in 2013, and is slated to be delivered to the Navy this summer. Detroit
(LCS 7) was launched in 2014. Little Rock (LCS 9) and Sioux City (LCS 11) are in construction, with LCS 9 christening and launch planned for this summer. Wichita (LCS 13) had its keel laid in February 2015. Billings (LCS 15), as well as Indianapolis (LCS 17) and to be named LCS 19, are in the construction phase. Marinette Marine Corporation, a Fincantieri company, is building the ships in Marinette, Wis., with naval architect Gibbs & Cox of Arlington, Va., providing engineering support. Fincantieri has invested more than $100 million in the Marinette facility on upgrades that have increased efficiency and minimized energy consumption, an expansion that will allow for construction of more than two ships at a time, and process improvements that will speed up production. Nearly 900 suppliers across 43 states are contributing to the Freedom-class LCS program.
National Cutter Boat Pooling Program In the present state, each major Coast Guard cutter is permanently assigned a set of cutter boats. While the parent cutter is in port or in programmed depot maintenance, the assigned cutter boat(s) remain idle, and not utilized for operational service. A strategy to improve readiness and lower life cycle costs is to centrally store and maintain the cutter boats. As such, the U.S. Coast Guard Surface Forces Logistics Center (SFLC), Small Boat Product Line (SBPL), is seeking qualified sources to establish a National Cutter Boat Pooling (NCBP) Program for the over-the-horizon cutter boats (CB-OTH) MKII, MKIIIs and OTH IV cutter boats and trailers. Performance will include the transportation, storage, maintenance, repair and technical support services for a
6
|
April 07, 2015
rotatable pool of up to 125 boats and trailers deployed on cutters throughout the United States. The SFLC SBPL mission is to develop and execute various alteration and technical support programs to upgrade and maintain in a more cost-effective and timely manner the material readiness of various boat hull, mechanical and electrical and electronic systems in order to meet major cutters operational needs. This contract is to provide the full spectrum of technical support encompassing all phases of the NCBP process. This contract will be under the administrative control of SFLC SBPL. Primary point of contact: Kelly A. Wyatt kelly.a.wyatt@uscg.mil, 410-582-4720
www.npeo-kmi.com
CNO Stresses Versatility of Independence-Class LCS Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Admiral Jonathan Greenert and Representative Jeff Miller (R-Fla.) stressed the versatility of the Independenceclass littoral combat ships (LCS) April 1 at a press conference on board Naval Air Station (NAS) Pensacola. After touring the USS Independence (LCS 2) with the congressman, the CNO highlighted the value of the LCS’s ability to be repackaged for multiple missions. “The thing that is of value about the LCS is that she has great volume, high speed, and is modular,” said Greenert. “What that means is you can change out packages to perform different missions.” “Currently, the Independence is configured for mine countermeasures operations, but she can be reconfigured for other missions including maritime security or anti-submarine warfare. These packages could be forward deployed around the world in hot spots, where in a matter of a few days, the ship could be changed as necessary to meet the demand.” The ship has been testing its new anti-mine warfare technology in the Gulf of Mexico since February 20, and will be docking between sorties at NAS Pensacola throughout its training operation. Greenert praised the experience of the crew testing the new LCS, saying it allows the Navy to be more efficient with crew management. “These sailors on board the ship are more senior than the average sailor,” he said. “They’ve been in the Navy for four to six years. This enables us to keep the crew to half of what it would normally be on a conventional ship.” The CNO also addressed the pace of construction for these new ships. “In the future, I expect to see continued construction of the LCS platform. We took a pause and decided we need 52 of these ships,” said Greenert. “The secretary of defense asked us to take a look at this and see if we could make these more survivable and more lethal. We’ve done that and we are all guns ahead.” Miller was thanked by the CNO for his work in Congress in aiding military personnel and veterans. The representative likewise thanked the CNO for letting him visit the ship. “It’s been an outstanding tour of a great new capability that we have in the United States Navy,” said Miller. “I appreciate not only seeing this great vessel, but being able to talk to the men and women of the USS Independence.”
www.npeo-kmi.com
Laser Eye Protection The purpose of laser eye protection (LEP) is to reduce the possibility of damage to the eye from a variety of laser threats. Threats to aircrew come from both unintentional friendly and unfriendly sources. Aircraft and pilot lasing incidents are increasing, with the majority of the incidents occurring at night during aircraft takeoff and landing. The Navy has been tasked to design, produce and deploy a multiple wavelength spectacle to address the needs of fixed- and rotary-wing aircrew in fixed multiple wavelength laser threat environments. Specific threat wavelengths and optical density (OD) requirements are contained in the classified and only persons with a “need-to-know” will be authorized access. The lens shall be tested to demonstrate the wearer is protected throughout the entire safety zone as defined in ANSI Z136.7. Optical density shall be verified at each threat wavelength or wavelength range using laser sources of the appropriate wavelength. Laser source shall have a bandwidth no greater than 1nm. OD shall be verified throughout the entire specified wavelength protection bands where lasers were not used, using a measurement system of appropriate wavelength range and dynamic range for the OD being measured. Optical density and angular testing shall be performed to test the full protection of the safety zone, up to the frame edge when it falls within the safety zone projected angle. Primary Point of Contact: Tyesha Parker tyesha.parker@navy.mil, (301) 757-6596
USNS Fall River Repairs The USNS Fall River (JHSV-4) has experienced hull damage and MSC is looking for repair. The Navy is considering one of two options. Option 1: Contact damage with the pier appears to be well above the water line. Permanent repairs may be conducted pier side with the added requirement that the internals are also examined and be included in the repairs as needed. A repair plan proposal must include access to this area for internal examination and repairs. Option 2: Temporary repairs may be performed for the purpose of sealing the hull breaches. These repairs will be for the purpose of allowing the vessel to shift to a repair facility only. If ABS is able to view the internals during the temporary repairs and is satisfied that there is limited damage ABS would be willing to issue the vessel an outstanding for dry-docking to match up with the outstanding for the fuel tank repair. The ship will be in Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek until permanent/temp repairs can be accomplished.
april 07, 2015
|
7
PEO U&W Industry Day The Program Executive Office for Unmanned Aviation and Weapons, PEO (U&W), is planning to conduct an industry day and follow-on idea days to provide opportunities for industry to learn about the technology needs of PEO (U&W) with the potential for follow-on briefings regarding technologies that industry has developed. This opportunity is open to all companies that have new and innovative ideas to support the future of naval aviation unmanned air system (UAS) and weapon programs. The announcement for the industry day and idea days constitutes a request for
information (RFI) notice for planning purposes only. This RFI is issued for determining potential technologies and capabilities to consider for the future of naval aviation from industry and does not constitute an invitation for bid, a request for proposal, a request for quote, or an indication that the government will contract for any of the items and/or services identified in response to this notice. No solicitation documents exist at this time. Participation in this RFI is neither mandatory nor is it requisite to future participation by a contractor in any future contract RFP.
Industry Day will be an opportunity for industry to learn about the technology needs of PEO (U&W) UAS and Weapon programs. Industry Day will be held on April 16, 2015 at the Bay District Volunteer Fire Department Social Hall at 46900 South Shangri-La Drive, Lexington Park, Md. 20653 near gate 2 of the Patuxent River Naval Air Station. The industry day website is at: http:// events.constantcontact.com/register/eve nt?llr=cqbimhtab&oeidk=a07ealhdujd4b4 c4a7a
2015 PEO (U&W) Technology Needs Overarching
Unmanned Air Systems (UAS)
Weapons
• Cyber Security • Data Management/Data Fusion • Assured navigation and communications in Anti-Access Area-Denial (A2/AD) environments • Non-GPS precision navigation and geolocation in the maritime domain • Operational dynamic resource management
• Landing systems for sea-based UAS (fixed wing and rotary wing) • High bandwidth, low profile/drag, through the rotor Beyond Line Of Sight (BLOS) communications for rotary-wing aircraft • Multivehicle, multisensor planning and control • Reducing bandwidth and/or operator workload by converting sensor data into actionable information • Sensors for small UAS to detect and avoid non-cooperative airborne contacts
• Net enabled/interoperable weapons (including weapon to weapon cooperative attack) • Multimission capability • Seeker capabilities in day/night, all weather and cluttered environments • Expanded engagement envelope • Insensitive Munitions Improvements • Alternative weapons (e.g., directed energy) for airborne applications Primary Point of Contact: Jessica L. Guy jessica.l.guy@navy.mil
Projected Agenda
8
|
7:30
Check In at Bay District Volunteer Fire Department
8:00
Welcome / Introduction
8:15
PEO(U&W) Worldview
PEO(U&W)
8:45
Future of Naval Air Weapons
PDPEO(U&W)W
9:00
Future of Naval Air UAVs
PDPEO(U&W)U
9:15
Networking Break
9:45
SBIR Goals and Reporting Requirements
NAVAIR SBIR PM
10:15
Small Business Requirements
NAVAIR Small Business Office
10:45
Naval Air Warfare and Weapons S&T
ONR Code 35
11:15
Lunch
12:30
Fleet Future Aviation Capability Needs
Fleet Forces Command (TBD)
13:00
Future of Naval Unmanned Systems and Integration
OPNAV N2/N6
13:30
Networking Break
14:00
Future of Naval Aviation Requirements
OPNAV N98
14:30
Marine Aviation Requirements
APW-72 (TBD)
April 07, 2015
www.npeo-kmi.com
Light Weight Wide Aperture Array and Wide Aperture Array Software Development and Engineering Services Program Executive Office Submarines (PMS401) has issued a statement of work defining the efforts required for the program management, engineering, software development, logistics, configuration management, software integration test and evaluation, and Information Assurance (IA), of the Light Weight Wide Aperture Array (LWWAA) and Wide Aperture Array (WAA) systems. This effort includes exploring existing and new approaches to sensor processing and developing new or augmenting existing capabilities as required to meet the acoustic processing needs for the Navy. The efforts defined herein are applicable to SSN688I, SSN21 and SSN 774 class submarines. The successful contractor shall develop, test, and deliver a common operational LWWAA and WAA software to meet all requirements specified in the “AN/BQQ-10(V) LWWAA and WAA
In-Board Processing Specification” (PMS401LWWAA/WAA Spec-01). The delivery and acceptance of the common LWWAA and WAA Software will be contingent on successful completion of qualification and acceptance testing. The contractor is required to deliver the common LWWAA and WAA Software for TI-18 and TI-20 as GFE to acoustic rapid commercial-off-the-shelf insertion (A-RCI) system integrator for system integration and shipboard installation. There are also other industry partners whom provide engineering services and support of the A-RCI sonar system. The contractor shall work in a collaborative environment with a consortium of Navy, Navy laboratories, academia, A-RCI prime system integrator, ownership monitoring ship developer, common acoustic cabinet developer, and other
industry partners to ensure continued success of the program. The contractor shall identify his approach to be used to support the “Open Source Initiative/Open Systems Architecture” to enable third-party applications and allow for the efficient integration of improvements with the submarine acoustic systems. The contractor shall leverage past experience involved in similar efforts and indicate the approach that will be used in delivering this effort. Based on the rapid development cycle for A-RCI builds, it is highly encouraged that the contractor maintains a constant presence at the A-RCI system integration facility to support all integration efforts, fleet support issues, and common LWWAA and WAA system development. Primary Point of Contact: Danielle C. Tyler danielle.tyler1@navy.mil, 202-781-0828
Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar The Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar (EASR) will be one sensor in a new sensor suite that is designed to meet the performance needs contained in the Battlespace Awareness Initial Capabilities Document. EASR is to be fielded in two variants. Variant 1 is a single-face array rotating design to provide SPS-48 and SPS-49 capabilities for installation on amphibious warfare ships such as new-construction America-class amphibious assault ships (LHA-8+), LPD, and LX(R), and any other designated ship class. Variant 2 is a three-face fixed array design slated for aircraft carriers and any other designated ship class. EASR is envisioned as a new radar designed to be scalable and adaptable to accommodate current and future mission requirements for multiple platforms. EASR will be the primary air surveillance radar supporting ship self-defense, situational awareness and Air Traffic Control (ATC) for Ford-class carriers (CVN 79+). For other ship classes, EASR will be the primary radar for self-defense and situational awareness and the backup radar for ATC. The solicitation will address the EASR EMD phase and production.
www.npeo-kmi.com
The objective of the issued solicitation is to define the work necessary to design the EASR and to build, integrate and test an EASR engineering development model (EDM). This SOW will include a base contract beginning with design work leading to preliminary design review and culminating at system acceptance of the EDM at the end of testing at the Surface Combat System Center, Wallops Island, Va. Working Groups Radar/Ship Integration Working Group (RSIWG) is established to manage and maintain the interfaces with the ship hull, mechanical, and electrical (HM&E) systems. The RSIWG is anticipated to meet monthly in the Washington, D.C. area. Combat System/Air Traffic Control Integration Working Group (C/ATIWG) is established to manage interfaces and ensure that the functional allocation and the performance of EASR is fully utilized combat system (CS) (including weapon system components, electronic warfare systems, missiles and track databases), cooperative engagement capability (CEC) and air traffic control (ATC) system. The C/ATIWG is anticipated to meet monthly in the Washington, D.C. area.
Topside Integration Working Group (TIWG) is established to study and manage the electromagnetic environment aboard the ship. The TIWG is anticipated to meet quarterly in the Washington, D.C. area. Cost & Affordability Working Group (CAWG) is established to ensure that a highly capable system is affordable by coordinating the TOC model development and affordability assessments for EASR. The CAWG will establish TOC model assumptions, evaluate life cycle cost metrics and monitor the cost and earned value on the contract. The CAWG will also interface with the other IPTs. The CAWG is anticipated to meet quarterly in the Washington, D.C. area. System Safety Working Group (SSWG) is established to study and manage system and software safety issues. The government will identify an EASR Principal For Safety (PFS), who will co-chair the SSWG. The SSWG will also interface with the CS PFS. During this phase, the SSWG is anticipated to meet quarterly in the Washington, D.C. area. Primary Point of Contact: John Butto john.butto@navy.mil, 202-781-2549
april 07, 2015
|
9
Norfolk Naval Shipyard Undocks USS Maryland On February 21, Norfolk Naval Shipyard (NNSY) successfully undocked USS Maryland (SSBN 738). SSBN 738 is now pier-side to finish its engineered refueling overhaul, a complex, major shipyard availability at the submarine’s midlife point that enables the submarine to operate for its entire design service life. Maryland has been at NNSY since December 2012. According to Project Superintendent John Darlington, “The Maryland is in the end game now. We have less than 10 percent production work remaining. The majority of the end game will involve testing the systems that have been overhauled and upgraded.” Some of the major jobs during the availability include ship systems overhaul, specifically the replacement of distilling plants with a reverse osmosis unit; replacement of the service turbine generator rotor with a low-sensitivity rotor; installation of an upgraded 500 kilowatt motor generator; and local area network upgrades. Undocking was achieved despite high winds challenging crane service, unusually cold weather preventing the normal process of washing down the dry dock, and several inches of snowfall. When it became apparent the effort might fall short of maintaining the planned undocking date, volunteers pitched in from around the shipyard to assist. “The team has shown great perseverance and refused to give up,” said John Darlington. “It took the entire shipyard to help us get through the snow event, and we have proven that when everyone works together we can be successful. This is a proud project team and we will continue to work together to give the shipyard more successes in the future.”
10
|
April 07, 2015
According to Darlington, there are many challenges, not the least of which is the number of people to be managed. “Due to the magnitude of the effort and the span in time from pre-planning through completion, the efforts of thousands of people are required. At the peak we had greater than 1,000 personnel working the Maryland each day. To date, over 5,821 different personnel have directly supported the Maryland’s availability. These availabilities are very challenging for the ship and the shipyard.” In addition to the small amount of production work to still be accomplished on the boat, system testing and certification and ship’s force training will be conducted, culminating in sea trials later this year.
www.npeo-kmi.com
Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress ➥ Continued From pAGE 1 is to feature a new and more capable radar called the Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR). The version of the AMDR to be carried by the Flight III DDG-51 is smaller and less powerful than the version that was envisaged for a cruiser called the CG(X) that the Navy at one point was planning to procure, but subsequently canceled. The Flight III DDG51’s AMDR is to have a diameter of 14 feet, while the AMDR envisaged for the CG(X) would have had a substantially larger diameter. Multiyear Procurement (MYP) in FY13-FY17 As part of its action on the Navy’s FY13 budget, Congress granted the Navy authority to use a multiyear procurement (MYP) contract for DDG-51s to be procured FY13-FY17. The Navy awarded the contract on June 3, 2013. The Navy plans to use an engineering change proposal (ECP) to shift from the Flight IIA design to the Flight III design during this MYP contract. If the Flight III design is not ready to support the procurement of the first Flight III ship in FY16, the Navy can delay issuing the ECP and shift the start of Flight III procurement to FY17. DDG-1000 Program The DDG-1000 program was initiated in the early 1990s. The DDG1000 is a multimission destroyer with an emphasis on naval surface fire support (NSFS) and operations in littoral (i.e., near-shore) waters. The DDG-1000 is intended to replace, in a technologically more modern form, the large-caliber naval gun fire capability that the Navy lost when it retired its Iowa-class battleships in the early 1990s, to improve the Navy’s general capabilities for operating in defended littoral waters, and to introduce several new technologies that would be available for use on future Navy ships. The DDG-1000 was also intended to serve as the basis for the Navy’s now-canceled CG(X) cruiser. The DDG-1000 is to have a reduced-size crew of 142 sailors (compared to roughly 300 on the Navy’s Aegis destroyers and cruisers) so as to reduce its operating and support (O&S) costs. The ship incorporates a significant number of new technologies, including an integrated electric-drive propulsion system and automation technologies enabling its reduced-sized crew. With an estimated full load displacement of 15,482 tons, the DDG1000 design is roughly 63 percent larger than the Navy’s current 9,500ton Aegis cruisers and destroyers, and larger than any Navy destroyer or cruiser since the nuclear-powered cruiser Long Beach (CGN-9), which was procured in FY57. The first two DDG-1000s were procured in FY07 and split-funded (i.e., funded with two-year incremental funding) in FY07-FY08; the Navy’s FY16 budget submission estimates their combined procurement cost at $8,797.9 million. The third DDG-1000 was procured in FY09 and split-funded in FY09-FY10; the Navy’s FY16 budget submission estimates its procurement cost at $3,490.8 million. As shown in Table 1 below, the estimated combined procurement cost for all three DDG-1000s, as reflected in the Navy’s annual budget submission, has grown by $3,311.6 million, or 36.9 percent, since the FY09 budget (i.e., the budget for the fiscal year in which the third DDG-1000 was procured).
www.npeo-kmi.com
Table 1. Change in Estimated Combined Procurement Cost of DDG-1000, DDG-1001, and DDG-2002 (In millions, rounded to nearest tenth, as shown in annual Navy budget submissions) Estimated combined procurement cost (millions of dollars) FY09 budget FY10 budget FY11 budget FY12 budget FY13 budget FY14 budget FY15 budget FY16 budget
Change from prior year’s budget submission
Cumulative change from FY2009 budget submission
8,977.1
—
—
9,372.5
+395.4 (+4.4%)
+395.4 (+4.4%)
9,993.3
+620.8 (+6.6%)
+1,016.2 (+11.3%)
11,308.8
+1,315.5 (+13.2%)
+2,331.7 (+26.0%)
11,470.1
+161.3 (+1.4%)
+2,493.0 (+27.8%)
11,618.4
+148.3 (+1.3%)
+2,641.3 (+29.4%)
12,069.4
+451.0 (+3.9%)
+3,092.3 (+34.4%)
12,288.7
+219.3 (+1.8%)
+3,311.6 (+36.9%)
Some of the cost growth in the earlier years in the table was caused by the truncation of the DDG-1000 program from seven ships to three, which caused some class-wide procurement-rated costs that had been allocated to the fourth through seventh ships to be reallocated to the three remaining ships. The Navy states that the cost growth shown in the later years of the table reflects, among other things, a series of incremental, year-by-year movements away from an earlier Navy cost estimate for the program, and toward a higher estimate developed by Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) office within the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). As one consequence of a Nunn-McCurdy cost breach experienced by the DDG-1000 program in 2010 (see “2010 Nunn-McCurdy Breach, Program Restructuring, and Milestone Recertification” in Appendix A), the Navy was directed to fund the DDG-1000 program to CAPE’s higher cost estimate for the period FY11-FY15, and to the Navy’s cost estimate for FY16 and beyond. The Navy states that it has been implementing this directive in a year-by-year fashion with each budget submission since 2010, moving incrementally closer each year to CAPE’s higher estimate. The Navy stated in 2014 that even with the cost growth shown in the table, the DDG-1000 program as of the FY15 budget submission was still about 3 percent below the program’s rebaselined starting point for calculating any new Nunn-McCurdy cost breach on the program. All three ships in the DDG-1000 program are to be built at GD/BIW, with some portions of each ship being built by Ingalls Shipbuilding for delivery to GD/BIW. Raytheon is the prime contractor for the DDG1000’s combat system (its collection of sensors, computers, related software, displays, and weapon launchers). The Navy awarded GD/BIW the contract for the construction of the second and third DDG-1000s on September 15, 2011.
april 07, 2015
|
11
Surface Combatant Construction Industrial Base All cruisers, destroyers and frigates procured since FY85 have been built at General Dynamics’ Bath Iron Works (GD/BIW) shipyard of Bath, Maine, and Ingalls Shipbuilding of Pascagoula, MS, a division of Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII). Both yards have long histories of building larger surface combatants. Construction of Navy surface combatants in recent years has accounted for virtually all of GD/BIW’s ship-construction work and for a significant share of Ingalls’ ship-construction work. (Ingalls also builds amphibious ships for the Navy.) Navy surface combatants are overhauled, repaired and modernized at GD/BIW, Ingalls, other private-sector U.S. shipyards, and government-operated naval shipyards (NSYs). Lockheed Martin and Raytheon are generally considered the two leading Navy surface combatant radar makers and combat system integrators. Northrop Grumman is a third potential maker of Navy surface combatant radars. Lockheed is the lead contractor for the DDG-51 combat system (the Aegis system), while Raytheon is the lead contractor for the DDG-1000 combat system, the core of which is called the Total Ship Computing Environment Infrastructure (TSCE-I). Lockheed has a share of the DDG-1000 combat system, and Raytheon has a share of the DDG-51 combat system. Lockheed, Raytheon, and Northrop competed to be the maker of the AMDR to be carried by the Flight III DDG-51. On October 10, 2013, the Navy announced that it had selected Raytheon to be the maker of the AMDR. The surface combatant construction industrial base also includes hundreds of additional firms that supply materials and components. The financial health of Navy shipbuilding supplier firms has been a matter of concern in recent years, particularly since some of them are the sole sources for what they make for Navy surface combatants. FY16 Funding Request The Navy estimates the combined procurement cost of the two DDG-51s requested for procurement in FY16 at $3,522.7 million. A comparison with the cost of the two DDG-51s procured in FY15 suggests that, within the estimated combined cost of $3,522.7 million for the two FY16 DDG-51s, the Flight III DDG-51 might account for, very roughly, $2 billion, while the other DDG-51 might account for, very roughly, $1.5 billion. The potential difference of, very roughly, $500 million in cost between the two ships includes one-time design and change-order costs for modifying the DDG-51 design to the Flight III configuration, additional costs for the AMDR radar and associated electrical power and cooling equipment, and some loss of shipyard production learning curve benefits due to the change in the ship’s design. The two DDG-51s requested for procurement in FY16 have received a total of $373.0 million in prior-year advance procurement (AP) funding. The Navy’s proposed FY16 budget requests the remaining $3,149.7 million needed to complete the ships’ estimated combined procurement cost. The Navy’s proposed FY16 budget also requests $75.0 million in so-called cost-to- complete procurement funding to replace funding for DDG-51s procured in FY10-FY12 that was canceled by March 1, 2013, sequester. The Navy’s proposed FY16 budget also requests $433.4 million in procurement funding to complete construction of Zumwalt(DDG-1000) class destroyers procured in prior years, and $241.8 million in research and development funding for development work on the AMDR. The funding request for the AMDR is contained in Program Element (PE) 0604522N (“Advanced Missile Defense Radar [AMDR] System”), which is line 118 in the Navy’s FY16 research and development account.
12
|
April 07, 2015
Issues for Congress Flight III DDG-51: Readiness of Design for Procurement in FY16 One issue for Congress concerns the readiness of the Flight III design for procurement in FY16. As noted earlier, the Navy plans to shift to procurement of the Flight III design with the second of the two DDG-51s requested for procurement in FY16. The Navy argues that the Flight III design will be ready for procurement in FY16. If it is judged that the design is not ready, the Navy’s plan allows for procurement of the first Flight III DDG-51 to be shifted to FY17 or a later year. At a February 25, 2015 hearing on Department of the Navy acquisition programs before the Seapower and Projection Forces subcommittee of House Armed Services Committee, Department of the Navy officials testified that In October 2013, the Navy awarded the contract for development of the AMDR, with options for up to nine low rate initial production (LRIP) units. The AMDR radar suite will be capable of providing simultaneous surveillance and engagement support for long range BMD and area defense. The program continues to demonstrate maturity in the design development as shown in successful completion of the AMDR hardware critical design review (CDR) in December 2014 and is on track for the system CDR in April 2015. Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) detail design efforts for the DDG Flight III design will continue in FY16, ultimately leading to over 90 percent detail design completion prior to construction on the first Flight III ship. In a February 2015 report to Congress on the status of the Flight III design, the Navy stated that with respect to systems and equipment levels of maturity for Flight III, the AMDR is the only new development technology. The AMDR has successfully completed Milestone B, a full system Preliminary Design Review, a hardware Critical Design Review, and will deliver its first full ship set of production equipment by early FY20. The remaining equipment required to provide power and cooling to the AMDR are all based on currently existing equipment and therefore induce low technical risk to the program. Given the tremendous capability improvement AMDR provides to defeat emerging air and ballistic missile threats over current radars, the low to moderate technical risk associated with implementing this radar on an FY16 DDG 51 justifies execution of the ECP during the FY13-17 multiyear procurement contract.... All major equipment development is on track to support DDG 51 Class implementation of the AMDR in FY16.... The Flight III program is supported by appropriate design execution, Systems Engineering Technical Reviews, and stakeholder relationships consistent with meeting requirements and overall pro-gram schedule. Major supporting component developments for AMDR-S [AMDR S band], PCMs [power conversion modules], and SSGTGs [ship service gas turbine generators] are well underway by the associated Participating Resource Managers (PARMs) with schedules and milestones that support the overall Flight III delivery targets. Detail design was started in FY14 with the Program Office delivering
www.npeo-kmi.com
Government Furnished Information (GFI) to the shipyard services to support continued Flight III development. Continued development of GFI will support detail design fidelity leading to successful Preliminary Design Review (PDR), Critical Design Review (CDR), and Production Readiness Review (PRR) targeting 90 percent design completion supporting start of construction.... PARM schedules are integrated with anticipated in-yard need dates for construction and testing resulting in successful light-off and delivery targeted for FY22. Management approach to supporting construction, test and delivery will be consistent with multiyear procedures already in place. The DDG 51 AEGIS program office employs a risk management plan based on the guidance pro-vided in applicable Defense Acquisition documents, which were then tailored specifically to the DDG 51 Flight III program. Risk management occurs in main areas for Flight III: AMDR/RSC [Radar Suite Control] development, combat system development and total ship design, including HM&E [hull, mechanical, and electrical] modifications necessary to support AMDR and the combat system. DDG 51 Flight III risk management is tracked internally by a Risk Management Board (RMB) which meets quarterly. Participants of the RMB include the AEGIS program office, shipyard representatives, and PARM (AMDR, SSGTG and PCM) representatives, along with combat system and ship design team members. The purpose of these meetings is to discuss and track the status on current risks, along with introducing any additional risks that may need to be added to the risk register. Once a risk is entered into the risk register, it is tracked through the life of the program. Quarterly RMB reviews and numerical rescoring of the risk show trends and effectiveness of mitigation efforts.... With respect to Flight III systems level of maturity, the AMDR is the only new development technology. The AMDR has successfully completed Milestone B, a full system Preliminary Design Review, a hardware Critical Design Review, and will deliver its first full ship set of production equipment by early FY20. The remaining equipment required to provide power and cooling to the AMDR are all based on currently existing equipment and therefore induce low technical risk to the program. Given the tremendous capability improvement AMDR provides to defeat emerging air and ballistic missile threats over current radars, the low to moderate technical risk associated with implementing this radar on an FY16 DDG 51 justifies execution of the ECP [Engineering Change Proposal] during the FY13-17 multiyear procurement contract. This report has assembled the latest available design and integration information based on the recent design reviews, assumptions, decisions, and sources provided to address the questions posed. In summary, the AMDR technology has matured, ship impacts are clearly understood, and design efforts are underway for ECP development. The Navy's intention, as stated and supported by the contents of this report, is to integrate AMDR-S into the DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class ships beginning with the last ship of FY16. Flight III DDG-51: Cost, Technical, and Schedule Risk Another issue for Congress concerns cost, technical, and schedule risk for the Flight III DDG-51. Some observers have expressed concern about the Navy’s ability to complete development of the AMDR and deliver the first AMDR to the shipyard in time to support the construction schedule for a first Flight III DDG-51 procured in FY16. The Navy
www.npeo-kmi.com
could respond to a delay in the development of the AMDR by shifting the procurement of the first Flight III DDG-51 to FY17 or a later year, while continuing to procure Flight IIA DDG-51s. (The MYP that the Navy has awarded for FY13-FY17 is structured to accommodate such a shift, should it become necessary.) Some observers have also expressed concern about the potential procurement cost of the Flight III DDG-51 design. A February 2, 2015 press report stated: The Navy began detailed design work on the Flight III variant... in December and will conduct a preliminary design review [PDR] of the program in July.... The program completed several significant milestones on schedule in 2014 and is on track to do the same in 2015, Captain Mark Vandroff, DDG-51 program manager, said Jan. 14... The capabilities development document for Flight III was validated by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council on October 28, 2014, Vandroff said, and preliminary design was completed that same month. Detailed design work was initiated in December and the program office plans to conduct PDR in July, he added. The detailed design phase will last about two and a half years, Vandroff estimated. March 2015 GAO Report A March 2015 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report assessing selected DOD acquisition programs stated the following in its assessment of the DDG-51 program: The Navy is undertaking Flight III detail design activities in fiscal 2015 concurrent with AMDR development—a strategy that could disrupt detail design activities as AMDR attributes become more defined. The Navy identifies AMDR integration as posing technical, cost and schedule risks to the Flight III program. In addition to AMDR, Flight III changes include upgrades to the ships’ cooling and electrical systems and other configuration changes intended to increase weight and stability margins. The Navy reports that a prototype of the cooling system is in operation at the vendor’s factory and is undergoing environmental qualification testing. However, the Navy identifies cost and schedule risks to the Flight III program associated with these cooling upgrades. The electrical system upgrades include changes to the distribution system to add and modify switchgear and transformers based on the system installed on LHA 6. The Navy plans to use engineering change proposals to the existing Flight IIA multiyear procurement contracts to construct the first three Flight III ships rather than establish new contracts for detail design and construction. The Navy has allotted 17 months to mature the Flight III detail design ahead of the planned solicitation for these proposals and plans to award construction of the first Flight III ship in fiscal 2016, with two follow-on ships in fiscal 2017. To support this, per DoD policy the Navy sought congressional approval in 2014 to transfer funds and begin detail design in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2014. However, this request was denied, postponing detail design start by several months. In September 2014, the Navy notified Congress that a delayed detail design start may prompt it to delay the introduction of AMDR until fiscal 2017. Regarding the AMDR specifically, the report stated:
april 07, 2015
|
13
Technology and Design Maturity All four of AMDR’s critical technologies—digital-beam-forming; transmit-receive modules; software; and digital receivers/exciters— are approaching full maturity, and program officials state that AMDR is on pace to meet DDG 51 Flight III’s schedule requirements. In 2015, the contractor is expected to complete an engineering development model consisting of a single full-size 14-foot radar array—as opposed to the final four array configuration planned for installation on DDG 51 Flight III—and begin testing in the contractor’s indoor facilities. Following the critical design review, scheduled for April 2015, the program plans to install the array in the Navy’s land-based radar test facility in Hawaii for further testing in a more representative environment. However, the Navy has no plans to test AMDR in a realistic (at-sea) environment prior to installation on the lead DDG 51 Flight III ship. Though the Navy is taking some risk reduction measures, there are only 15 months planned to install and test the AMDR prototype prior to making a production decision. Delays may cause compounding effects on testing of upgrades to the Aegis combat system since the Navy plans to use the AMDR engineering development model in combat system integration and testing. In August 2014, AMDR completed its final preliminary design review, which assessed both hardware and software. The total number of design drawings required for AMDR has not yet been determined and will be finalized at the program’s critical design review. However, AMDR officials are confident that the robust technology in the prototype represents the physical dimensions, weight, and power requirements to support DDG 51 Flight III integration. The AMDR program office provided an initial interface control document listing AMDR specifications to the DDG 51 Flight III program office. Ensuring correct AMDR design parameters is important since the available space, weight, power and cooling for DDG 51 Flight III is constrained, and design efforts for the ship will begin before AMDR is fully matured. The AMDR radar suite controller requires significant software development, with 1.2 million lines of code and four planned builds. The program also plans to apply an open systems approach to available commercial hardware to decrease development risk and cost. The program office identified that the first of four planned builds is complete, has passed the Navy’s formal qualification testing and will enter developmental testing next summer. Each subsequent build will add more functionality and complexity. AMDR will eventually need to interface with the Aegis combat management system found on DDG 51 destroyers. This interface will be developed in later software builds for fielding in 2020, and the Navy plans on conducting early combat system integration and risk reduction testing prior to making a production decision. Other Program Issues AMDR still lacks a Test and Evaluation Master Plan approved by DoD’s Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E), as required by DoD policy. DOT&E expressed concerns with the lack of a robust live-fire test plan involving AMDR and the Navy’s selfdefense test ship. According to program officials, their current test plan’s models will provide sufficient data to support validation and accreditation and thus verify system performance. Program Office Comments According to the Navy, AMDR is on track to deliver a capability 30 times greater than the radar it will replace. To mitigate
14
|
April 07, 2015
development risk and deliver AMDR’s software at the earliest possible delivery date, the contractor is implementing software development approaches to improve productivity, in coordination with robust testing, modeling, and live flight test simulations. Further, an AMDR hardware facility—including a fully functioning portion of AMDR’s processing equipment and a software integration lab—is operating at the contractor’s facility to support iterative testing ahead of, and then in support of, production of the engineering development model. In December 2014, a hardware specific critical design review was successfully completed demonstrating that technical performance measures are in compliance with requirements and the hardware design is sufficiently mature to complete detailed design, and will proceed to engineering development model array production. December 2014 CBO Report A December 2014 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report on the cost of the Navy’s shipbuilding programs stated: [The Flight III DDG-51] configuration would incorporate the new Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR), now under development, which is larger and more powerful than the radar on earlier DDG-51s. The effective operation of the AMDR in the new Flight III configuration, however, will require increasing the amount of electrical power and cooling available on a Flight III. With those changes and associated increases in the ship’s displacement, a DDG-51 Flight III destroyer would cost about $300 million—or about 20 percent—more than a new Flight IIA destroyer, CBO estimates. Thus, CBO expects that the average cost per ship over the entire production run would be $1.9 billion, or about 19 percent more than the Navy’s estimate of $1.6 billion. CBO’s estimate of the costs of the DDG Flight IIA and Flight III ships to be purchased in the future is a little less than it was last year. Most of the decrease for the Flight III can be attributed to updated information on the cost of incorporating the AMDR into the Flight III configuration. The cost of the AMDR itself, according to the Navy, has declined steadily through the development program, and DoD’s Cost Analysis and Program Evaluation (CAPE) office concurs with the reduced estimate. The Navy decreased its estimate for the average price of a DDG-51 Flight III ship from $1.8 billion in the 2014 plan to $1.6 billion in the 2015 plan, primarily as a result of continued reductions in the estimate of the cost of the AMDR. Considerable uncertainty remains in the DDG-51 Flight III program, however. Costs could be higher or lower than CBO’s estimate, depending on the eventual cost and complexity of the AMDR, along with associated changes in the ship’s design to integrate the new radar.
Flight III DDG-51: Growth Margin Another issue for Congress is whether the Flight III DDG-51 design would have sufficient growth margin for a projected 35- or 40-year service life. A ship’s growth margin refers to its capacity for being fitted over time with either additional equipment or newer equipment that is larger, heavier, or more power-intensive than the older equipment it is replacing, so as to preserve the ship’s mission effectiveness. Elements of a ship’s growth margin include interior space, weight-carrying capacity, electrical power, cooling capacity (to cool equipment), and ability to accept increases in the ship’s
www.npeo-kmi.com
FY16
FY14
FY13
FY12
FY10
Service Life Allowance Comparison
FY
FY14 Flt IIA with SPQ-9B; FY16 Flt III with AMDR-S
450 VAC
SPQ-9B ∆ 450 VAC
FY12 FY12
FY13 FY13
FY14 FY14
AMDR-S ∆ FY16 4160 VAC FY16
450 VAC
5x200T ACs
5x200T ACs
5x200T ACs
5x300T ACs
FY12
FY13
FY14
FY16
FY16
FY14
FY13
FY12
FY10
FY10
0%
FY10 Flt IIA- FY16 Flt III Service Life Allowance Comparison
10%
Current Baseline
4160 VAC
FY10 Flt IIA – FY16* Flt III Service Life Allowance Comparison
FY16 Flt III with change to 3x4MW GTGS & 4160 VAC
12%
FY10 FY10
FY16
450 VAC
450 VAC
450 VAC
Current Baseline
Figure 2. Navy Briefing Slide on DDG-51 Growth Margins
Flight0%III DDG-51 Design Compared to Flight IIA DDG-51s
Notes:
Current Current Baseline Baseline
AMDR-S ∆
FY14
FY13
FY12
FY10
5%
SPQ-9B ∆
Current Baseline
vertical center of gravity. Navy ship classes are typically designed so Weight SLA KG SLA (ft)SLA that the first ships in the class will be built with a certain amount of Electric Power 12% 1.00 growth margin. Over time, some or all of the growth margin in a ship 25% 35% 0.90 10% class may be used up by backfitting additional or newer systems 0.80 30% 20% onto 8% existing ships in the class, or by building later ships in the 0.70 25% 0.60 class to a modified design that includes additional or newer 15% 20% 0.50 6% systems. 0.40 15% 10% 4% Modifying the DDG-51 design over time has used up some of 0.30 10% 0.20 the design’s growth margin. The Flight III DDG-51 would in some 2% 5% 0.10 5% respects have less of a growth margin than what the Navy would aim 0.00 0% 0% 0% to include in a new destroyer design of about the same size. A January 18, 2013, press report stated, “In making decisions about the FY14 Flt IIA with SPQ-9B; FY16 Flt III with AMDR-S FY14 Flt IIA with cooling, SPQ-9B; FY16and Flt other III with AMDR-S [Flight III] ship’s power, weight margins, [DDG-51 FY FY16 Flt III with change to 3x4MW GTGS & 4160 VAC program manager Captain Mark] Vandroff said [in a presentation at Notes: 1. - * Second ship in FY16 is designated as the DDG 51 Flight III a conference on January 15, 2013, that] the Navy wanted to ensure 2. -Cooling FY10 values are calculated, out yearLoads values are projections based on Not Electric Power SLA SLA - Connected that there was room to grow in the future, to allow for modernization DISTRIBUTION STATEM 25% 35% as well as capability upgrades when new weapons such as the elecApproved for public release, distrib tromagnetic railgun enter the fleet. Allowing for growth was balanced 30% 20% with25% cost, and Vandroff said he thought Source: the programPresentation did a great job of Captain Mark Vandroff to Surface Navy Association, January 1515% 2013. of coming up with an affordable solutionLegislative to a leap-ahead capability Affairs on January 28, 20% for the fleet.” In his presentation, Vandroff showed a slide comparing 15% Flight IIINote: DDG-51 Design Compared to Flight(i.e., IIAgrowth DDG-51s SLA means service life10% allowance margin). the growth margins of the Flight III design to those of Flight IIA DDG10% 51s procured or scheduled to be procured in FY10-FY14. 5%
CRS-13
FY16 Flt III with change to 5x300T HES-C AC Units
1. - * Second ship in FY16 is designated as the DDG 51 Flight III SLAout year values are projections based Notes: KGEstimates SLA (ft) 2. - FY10 valuesWeight are calculated, on Not to Exceed Design Budget 1 - * Second ship in FY16 is designated as the DDG 51 Flight III DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A: 1.00 - FY10 valuesisare calculated, out year values are projections based on Not to Exceed Approved for public release,2distribution unlimited. 0.90
15
Design 0.80Budget Estimates
tion of Captain Mark Vandroff to Surface Navy Association, January 15-17, 2013; a copy of the slides was provided to CRS by the 0.70 8%
FY14
AMDR-S ∆ FY16
5x200T ACs
5x200T ACs
5x300T ACs
FY12
FY13
FY14
FY16
SPQ-9B ∆
FY13
5x200T ACs
4160 VAC AMDR-S ∆ FY16 FY16
SPQ-9B ∆ 450 VAC
450 VAC
450 VAC
Current Current Baseline Baseline
1.00 35% 0.90 30% 0.80 0.70 25% 0.60 20% 0.50 0.40 15% 0.30 10% 0.20 0.10 5% 0.00 0%
KG SLA (ft) SLA Electric Power
FY12
FY16
FY14
FY13
FY12
FY10
FY14 Flt IIA with SPQ-9B; FY16 Flt III with AMDR-S
Current Baseline
0%
FY10
2%
0.60 A June 7, 2013 blog post stated: 0.50 0.40 0.30 The Navy is confident it has enough space, power and cooling 0.20 onboard the hull of its planned new line of destroyers to accom0.10 modate the planned high-powered Air and Missile Defense Radar 0.00
Current Baseline
A – FY16* Flt III owance Comparison
AMDR-S ∆
n service Compared to Flight(i.e., IIA growth DDG-51s life4%allowance margin).
SPQ-9B ∆
Current Baseline
Slide on DDG-51 on January 28, 2013. Growth Margins 6%
(AMDR), Captain Mark Vandroff, Naval Sea Systems Command program manager for the DDG-51 shipbuilding program, told USNI FY14 FltanIIA with SPQ-9B; FY16 Flt III with AMDR-S News in interview on Thursday. However, the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer (DDG-51) Flight III would be limited in the amount of additional weapons the ship could Cooling SLA - Connected Loads accommodate—including electromagnetic railguns and high-energy 25% lasers—without removing other capabilities. “Depending on how heavy that railgun is, could you fit it on 20% a DDG? My answer is what on that DDG are you willing to live 15% without right now?” Vandroff said. “You wouldn’t have the space and weight to put on some10% thing very large without something relatively sizable coming off.” 5%
FY10
FY14 FY14
FY13 FY13
20%
FY12 FY12
25%
FY10 FY10
Supporters of the Navy’s proposal to procure Flight III DDG-51s 0% could argue that the ship’s growth margin would be comparable to that of recently procured Flight IIA DDG-51s, and would be adFY14 Flt Flt III IIAwith withchange SPQ-9B; FltGTGS III with&AMDR-S FY16 Flt III with changeintocapability 5x300T HES-C Units FY16 to FY16 3x4MW 4160 VAC equate because the increase achievedAC with the Flight III configuration reduces the likelihood that the ship will need much Notes: 1. - * Second ship in FY16 is designated as the DDG 51 Flight III subsequent modification to retain its mission effectiveness over its 2. Cooling - FY10 values are -calculated, out year values are projections based on Not to Exceed Design Budget Estimates SLA Connected Loads projected service life. They could also argue that, given technology DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A: Approved for public release, distribution is unlimited.
15
tion of Captain Mark Vandroff to Surface Navy Association, January 15-17, 2013; a copy of the slides was provided www.npeo-kmi.com april 07, 2015 to| CRS 15 by the on January 15% 28, 2013.
advances, new systems added to the ship years from now might require no more (and possibly less) space, weight, electrical power or cooling capacity than the older systems they replace. Skeptics could argue that there are uncertainties involved in projecting what types of capabilities ships might need to have to remain mission effective over a 35- or 40-year life, and that building expensive new warships with relatively modest growth margins consequently would be imprudent. The Flight III DDG-51’s growth margin, they could argue, could make it more likely that the ships would need to be removed from service well before the end of their projected service lives due to an inability to accept modifications needed to preserve their mission effectiveness. Skeptics could argue that it might not be possible to fit the Flight III DDG-51 in the future with a high-power (200 kW to 300 kW) solid-state laser (SSL), because the ship would not have enough available electrical power or cooling capacity to support such a weapon. Skeptics could argue that high-power SSLs could be critical to the Navy’s ability years from now to affordably counter large numbers of enemy anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs) and antiship ballistic missiles (ASBMs) that might be fielded by a wealthy and determined adversary. Skeptics could argue that procuring Flight III DDG-51s could delay the point at which high-power SSLs could be introduced into the cruiser-destroyer force, and reduce for many years the portion of the cruiser-destroyer force that could ultimately be backfitted with high-power SSLs. This, skeptics could argue, might result in an approach to AAW and BMD on cruisers and destroyers that might ultimately be unaffordable for the Navy to sustain in a competition against a wealthy and determined adversary.
Flight III DDG-51: Issues Raised in January 2015 DOT&E Report Another issue for Congress concerns issues raised in a January 2015 report from DoD’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E)—DOT&E’s annual report for FY14. Regarding the Flight III DDG-51 program, the report stated: Executive Summary • On March 6, 2014, the deputy secretary of defense (DEPSECDEF) issued a Resource Management Decision memorandum directing the Navy to develop a plan to conduct at-sea testing of the self-defense capability of the DDG 51 Flight III Destroyer with the Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) and Aegis Combat System. The plan was to be approved by DOT&E and then adequately funded by the Navy. However, the Navy has not provided any plan to DOT&E or planned funding to facilitate the testing. • On April 23, 2014, DOT&E issued a memorandum to USD(AT&L) [Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technoogy, and Logistics—DoD’s acquisition executive] stating the intention to not approve any operational test plan for an Early Operational Assessment (EOA) of the AMDR due to non-availability of the required AMDR hardware and software. • On September 10, 2014, DOT&E issued a classified memorandum to USD(AT&L) with a review of the Navy Program Executive Office for Integrated Warfare Systems Design of Experiments study. The study attempted to provide a technical justification to
16
|
April 07, 2015
show the test program did not require using a Self-Defense Test Ship (SDTS) to adequately assess the self- defense capability of the DDG 51 Flight III Class Destroyers. DOT&E found the study presented a number of flawed rationales, contradicted itself, and failed to make a cogent argument for why an SDTS is not needed for operational testing.... Activity • On March 6, 2014, DEPSECDEF issued a Resource Management Decision memorandum directing the Navy to develop a plan to conduct at-sea testing of the self-defense capability of the DDG 51 Flight III Destroyer with the AMDR and Aegis Combat System. The plan was to be approved by DOT&E and then adequately funded by the Navy. To date, the Navy has not provided any plan to DOT&E or funding in response to this direction. • On April 23, 2014, DOT&E issued a memorandum to USD (AT&L) stating the operational test plan for an EOA of the AMDR could not be approved because the required AMDR hardware and software were not available as planned, per the 2010 DOT&Eand Navy- approved Test and Evaluation Strategy, and as briefed to the deputy assistant secretary of defense (strategic and tactical systems) in 2012. A prototype AMDR array, coupled to an upgraded radar controller using basic software for radar control and simple search and track functionality, was expected to be available. The lack of this hardware and software would have limited the EOA to a “table-top” review of program documentation, program plans, and available design data, which would, in DOT&E’s view, not have been a worthwhile use of resources. • On September 10, 2014, DOT&E issued a classified memorandum to USD(AT&L) that provided a review of the Navy Program Executive Office for Integrated Warfare Systems Design of Experiments study. The study attempted to provide a technical justification to show the test program did not require using an SDTS to adequately assess the self-defense capability of the DDG 51 Flight III Class Destroyers. DOT&E found the study presented a number of flawed rationales, contradicted itself, and failed to make a cogent argument for why an SDTS is not needed for operational testing. Assessment • DOT&E’s assessment continues to be that the operational test programs for the AMDR, Aegis Modernization and DDG 51 Flight III Destroyer programs are not adequate to fully assess their self-defense capabilities in addition to being inadequate to test the following Navy-approved AMDR and DDG 51 Flight III requirements. • The AMDR Capability Development Document describes AMDR’s IAMD mission, which requires AMDR to support simultaneous defense against multiple ballistic missile threats and multiple advanced anti-ship cruise missile (ASCM) threats. The Capability Development Document also includes an AMDR minimum track range Key Performance Parameter. • The DDG 51 Flight III Destroyer has a survivability requirement directly tied to meeting a self-defense requirement threshold
www.npeo-kmi.com
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
against ASCMs described in the Navy’s Surface Ship Theater Air and Missile Defense Assessment document of July 2008. It clearly states that area defense will not defeat all the threats, thereby demonstrating that area air defense will not completely attrite all ASCM raids and that individual ships must be capable of defeating ASCM leakers in the self-defense zone. Use of manned ships for operational testing with threat representative ASCM surrogates in the close-in, self-defense battlespace is not possible due to Navy safety restrictions because targets and debris from intercepts pose an unacceptable risk to personnel at ranges where some of the engagements will take place. The November 2013 mishap on the USS Chancellorsville (CG 62) involving an ASCM surrogate target resulted in even more stringent safety constraints. In addition to stand-off ranges (on the order of 1.5 to 5 nautical miles for subsonic and supersonic surrogates, respectively), safety restrictions require that ASCM targets not be flown directly at a manned ship, but at some cross-range offset, which unacceptably degrades the operational realism of the test. Similar range safety restrictions will preclude manned ship testing of eight of the nine ASCM scenarios contained in the Navy-approved requirements document for the Aegis Modernization Advanced Capability Build 16 Combat System upgrade as well as testing of the AMDR minimum track range requirement against supersonic, sea-skimming ASCM threatrepresentative surrogates at the land-based AMDR Pacific Missile Range Facility test site. To overcome these safety restrictions for the LHA-6, Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), DDG1000, LPD-17, LSD-41/49, and CVN78 ship classes, the Navy developed an Air Warfare/Ship Self Defense Enterprise modeling and simulation (M&S) test bed that uses live testing in the close-in battlespace with targets flying realistic threat profiles and manned ship testing for other battlespace regions and softkill capabilities to validate and accredit the M&S test bed. The same needs to be done for the DDG 51 Flight III Destroyer with its AMDR. Side-by-side comparison between credible live fire test results and M&S test results form the basis for the M&S accreditation. Without an SDTS with AMDR and an Aegis Combat System, there will not be a way to gather all of the operationally realistic live fire test data needed for comparison to accredit the M&S. The Navy needs to improve its Aegis Weapon System (AWS) models that are currently provided by Lockheed Martin’s MultiTarget Effectiveness Determined under Simulation by Aegis (MEDUSA) M&S tool. MEDUSA encompasses several components of the AWS including the SPY-1 radar, Command and Decision, and Weapon Control System. MEDUSA models AWS performance down to the system specification and the Navy considers it a high-fidelity simulation of AWS. However, it is not a tactical code model, so its fidelity is ultimately limited to how closely the specification corresponds to the Aegis tactical code (i.e., the specification is how the system is supposed to work while the tactical code is how the system actually works). This adds to the need for realistic live fire shots to support validation efforts. Earlier test events highlight the limitations of specification models like MEDUSA. During Aegis Advanced Capability Build
www.npeo-kmi.com
•
•
•
•
•
•
08 testing in 2011, five AWS software errors were found during live fire events and tracking exercises. Three software errors contributed to a failed SM-2 engagement, one to a failed ESSM engagement, and one to several failed simulated engagements during tracking exercises. Since these problems involved software coding errors, it is unlikely that a specification model like MEDUSA (which assumes no software errors in tactical code) would account for such problems and hence it would overestimate the combat system’s capability. By comparison, the Air Warfare/Ship Self Defense Enterprise M&S test bed used for assessing USS San Antonio’s (LPD-17) selfdefense capabilities used re-hosted Ship Self-Defense System Mk 2 tactical code. Since Aegis employs ESSM in the close-in, self-defense battlespace, understandingESSM’s performance is critical to understanding the self-defense capabilities of the DDG 51 Flight III Destroyer. Past DOT&E annual reports have stated that the ESSM’s operational effectiveness has not been determined. The Navy has not taken action to adequately test the ESSM’s operational effectiveness. Specifically, because safety limitations preclude ESSM firing in the close-in self-defense battlespace, there are very little test data available concerning ESSM’s performance, as installed on Aegis ships, against supersonic ASCM surrogates. Any data available regarding ESSM’s performance against supersonic ASCM surrogates are from a Ship Self-Defense System-based combat system configuration, using a completely different guidance mode or one that is supported by a different radar suite. The cost of building and operating an Aegis SDTS is small when compared to the total cost of the AMDR development/ procurement and the eventual cost of the 22 (plus) DDG 51
Flight III ships that are planned for acquisition ($55-plus billion). Even smaller is the cost of the SDTS compared to the cost of the ships that the DDG 51 Flight III Destroyer is expected to protect (approximately $450 Billion in new ship construction over the next 30 years). • If DDG 51 Flight III Destroyers are unable to defend themselves, these other ships are placed at substantial risk. • Moreover, the SDTS is not a one-time investment for only the AMDR/DDG 51 Flight III IOT&E [Initial Operational Test & Evaluation], as it would be available for other testing that cannot be conducted with manned ships (e.g., the ESSM Block 2) and as the combat system capabilities are improved. Recommendations • Status of Previous Recommendations. There are three previous recommendations that remain valid. The Navy should: 1.
2.
Program and fund an SDTS equipped with the AMDR and DDG 51 Flight III Aegis Combat System in time for the DDG 51 Flight III Destroyer IOT&E. Modify the AMDR, Aegis Modernization and DDG 51 Flight III Test and Evaluation Master Plans to include a phase of
april 07, 2015
|
17
3.
IOT&E using an SDTS equipped with the AMDR and DDG 51 Flight III Combat System. Modify the AMDR, Aegis Modernization, and DDG 51 Flight III Test and Evaluation Master Plans to include a credible M&S effort that will enable a full assessment of the AMDR and DDG 51 Flight III Combat System’s self-defense capabilities.
Lack of Roadmap for Accomplishing Three Things in Cruiser-Destroyer Force Another issue for Congress concerns the lack of an announced Navy roadmap for accomplishing three things in the cruiser-destroyer force:
• FY14 Recommendation. 1.
The Navy should comply with the DEPSECDEF direction to develop and fund a plan, to be approved by DOT&E, to conduct at-sea testing of the self-defense of the DDG 51 Flight III Destroyer with the AMDR and Aegis Combat System.
Flight III DDG-51: Adequacy of AAW and BMD Capability Another issue for Congress is whether the Flight III DDG-51 will have sufficient AAW and BMD capability to adequately perform future AAW and BMD missions. The Flight III DDG-51 would have more AAW and BMD capability than the current DDG-51 design, but less AAW and BMD capability than was envisioned for the CG(X) cruiser, in large part because the Flight III DDG-51 would be equipped with a 14-foot-diameter version of the AMDR that would have more sensitivity than the SPY-1 radar on Flight IIA DDG-51s, but less sensitivity than the substantially larger version of the AMDR that was envisioned for the CG(X). The CG(X) also may have had more missile-launch tubes than the Flight III DDG-51. The Navy argues that while the version of the AMDR on the Flight III DDG-51 will have less sensitivity than the larger version of the AMDR envisioned for the CG(X), the version of the AMDR on the Flight III DDG-51 will provide sufficient AAW and BMD capability to address future air and missile threats. A March 2014 GAO report assessing selected DoD acquisition programs stated: The X-band portion of AMDR will be comprised of an upgraded version of an existing rotating radar (SPQ-9B), instead of the new design initially planned. The new radar will instead be developed as a separate program at a later date and integrated with the thirteenth AMDR unit. According to the Navy, the upgraded SPQ-9B radar fits better within the Flight III’s sea frame and expected power and cooling availability. Program officials state that the SPQ-9B radar will have capabilities equal to the new design for current anti-air warfare threats, it will not perform as well against future threats. The Navy plans to install a 14-foot variant of AMDR on Flight III DDG 51s starting in 2019. According to draft AMDR documents, a 14-foot radar is needed to meet threshold requirements, but an over 20-foot radar is required to fully meet the Navy’s desired integrated air and missile defense needs. However, the shipyards and the Navy have determined that a 14-foot active radar is the largest that can be accommodated within the existing DDG 51deckhouse. Navy officials stated that AMDR is being developed as a scalable design but a new ship would be required to host a larger version of AMDR.
18
|
April 07, 2015
• restoring ship growth margins; • introducing large numbers of ships with integrated electric drive systems or other technologies that could provide ample electrical power for supporting future electrically powered weapons (such as high-power, solid-state lasers); and • introducing technologies (such as those for substantially reducing ship crew size) for substantially reducing ship operating and support (O&S) costs. (The potential importance of high-power, solid-state lasers is discussed in the previous section on the Flight III DDG-51’s growth margin.) The Navy’s pre-2008 plan to procure DDG-1000 destroyers and then CG(X) cruisers based on the DDG-1000 hull design represented the Navy’s roadmap at the time for restoring growth margins, and for introducing into the cruiser-destroyer force significant numbers of ships with integrated electric drive systems and technologies for substantially reducing ship crew sizes. The ending of the DDG-1000 and CG(X) programs in favor of continued procurement of DDG-51s leaves the Navy without an announced roadmap to do these things, because the Flight III DDG-51 will not feature a fully restored growth margin, will not be equipped with an integrated electric drive system or other technologies that could provide ample electrical power for supporting future electrically powered weapons, and will not incorporate features for substantially reducing ship crew size or for otherwise reducing ship O&S costs substantially below that of Flight IIA DDG-51s.
Options for Congress In general, options for Congress concerning destroyer acquisition include the following: • approving, rejecting or modifying the Navy’s procurement, advance procurement, and research and development funding requests for destroyers and their associated systems (such as the AMDR); • establishing conditions for the obligation and expenditure of funding for destroyers and their associated systems; and • holding hearings, directing reports, and otherwise requesting information from DoD on destroyers and their associated systems. In addition to these general options, below are some additional acquisition options relating to destroyers that Congress may wish to consider.
Adjunct Radar Ship The Navy canceled the CG(X) cruiser program in favor of developing and procuring Flight III DDG-51s reportedly in part on
www.npeo-kmi.com
the grounds that the Flight III destroyer would use data from offboard sensors to augment data collected by its AMDR. If those off-board sensors turn out to be less capable than the Navy assumed when it decided to cancel the CG(X) in favor of the Flight III DDG-51, the Navy may need to seek other means for augmenting the data collected by the Flight III DDG-51’s AMDR. One option for doing this would be to procure an adjunct radar ship—a non-combat ship equipped with a large radar that would be considerably more powerful than the Flight III DDG-51’s AMDR. The presence in the fleet of a ship equipped with such a radar could significantly improve the fleet’s AAW and BMD capabilities. The ship might be broadly similar to (but perhaps less complex and less expensive than) the new Cobra Judy Replacement missile range instrumentation ship (rendering shown below), which is equipped with two large and powerful radars, and which has an estimated total acquisition cost of about $1.7 billion. One to a few such adjunct radar ships might be procured, depending on the number of theaters to be covered, requirements for maintaining forward deployments of such ships, and their homeporting arrangements. The ships would have little or no self-defense capability and would need to be protected in threat situations by other Navy ships.
Flight III DDG-51 with Increased Capabilities Another option would be to design the Flight III DDG-51 to have greater capabilities than what the Navy is currently envisioning. Doing this might well require the DDG-51 hull to be lengthened—something that the Navy is not envisioning for the Flight III design. Navy and industry studies on the DDG-51 hull design that were performed years ago suggested that the hull has the potential for being lengthened by as much as 55 feet to accommodate additional systems. Building the Flight III DDG-51 to a lengthened configuration could make room for additional power-generation and cooling equipment, additional vertical launch system (VLS) missile tubes, and larger growth margins. It might also permit a redesign of the deckhouse to support a larger and more capable version of the AMDR than the 14-foot diameter version currently planned for the Flight III DDG-51. Building the Flight III DDG-51 to a lengthened configuration would increase its development cost and its unit procurement cost. The increase in unit procurement cost could reduce the number of Flight III DDG-51s that the Navy could afford to procure without reducing funding for other programs.
www.npeo-kmi.com
DDG-1000 Variant with AMDR Another option would be to design and procure a version of the DDG-1000 destroyer that is equipped with the AMDR and capable of BMD operations. Such a ship might be more capable in some regards than the Flight III DDG-51, but it might also be more expensive to develop and procure. An AMDR-equipped, BMD-capable version of the DDG-1000 could be pursued as either a replacement for the Flight III DDG-51 or a successor to the Flight III DDG-51 (after some number of Flight III DDG-51s were procured). A new estimate of the cost to develop and procure an AMDR-equipped, BMD-capable version of the DDG-1000 might differ from the estimate in the Navy’s 2009 destroyer hull/radar study (the study that led to the Navy’s decision to stop DDG-1000 procurement and resume DDG-51 procurement) due to the availability of updated cost information for building the current DDG-1000 design.
New-Design Destroyer Another option would be to design and procure a new-design destroyer that is intermediate in size between the DDG-51 and DDG1000 designs, equipped with the AMDR, and capable of BMD operations. This option could be pursued as either a replacement for the Flight III DDG-51 or a successor to the Flight III DDG-51 (after some number of Flight III DDG-51s were procured). Such a ship might be designed with the following characteristics: • either the same version of the AMDR that is envisioned for the Flight III DDG-51, or a version that is larger (but not as large as the one envisioned for the CG[X]); • enough electrical power and cooling capacity to permit the ship to be backfitted in the future with a high-power SSL; • more growth margin than on the Flight III DDG-51; • producibility features for reducing construction cost per ton that are more extensive than those on the DDG-51 design; • automation features permitting a crew that is smaller than what can be achieved on a Flight III DDG-51, so as to reduce ship O&S costs; • physical open-architecture features that are more extensive than those on the Flight III DDG-51, so as to reduce modernizationrelated life cycle ownership costs; • no technologies not already on, or being developed for, other Navy ships, with the possible exception of technologies that would enable an integrated electric drive system that is more compact than the one used on the DDG-1000; and • DDG-51-like characteristics in other areas, such as survivability, maximum speed, cruising range and weapons payload. Such a ship might have a full load displacement of roughly 11,000 to 12,000 tons, compared to about 10,000 tons for the Flight III DDG-51, 15,000 or more tons for an AAW/BMD version of the DDG-1000, and perhaps 15,000 to 23,000 tons for a CG(X). A March 18, 2013 press report states that A recommended reevaluation of the next flights of LCSs [Littoral Combat Ships]... is only part of a classified memo, “Vision for the 2025 Surface Fleet,” submitted late last year by the head of Naval Surface Forces, Vice Admiral Tom Copeman, to Chief of
april 07, 2015
|
19
Naval Operations Admiral Jon Greenert.... Copeman, according to several sources familiar with the document, also recommended against building the DDG 51 Flight III destroyers, a modification of the Arleigh Burke class to be fitted with the new Air Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) under development to replace the SPY-1 radars used in Aegis warships. The AMDR, designed with higher power and fidelity to handle the complex ballistic-missile defense mission, will require significantly more electrical power than the current system. And, while the AMDR apparently will fit into the DDG 51 hull, margins for future growth are severely limited. Instead, sources said Copeman recommends creating a new, large surface combatant fitted with AMDR and designed with the power, weight and space to field “top-end energy weapons” like the electromagnetic rail gun under development by the Navy. The new ship could also be developed into a replacement for today’s Ticonderoga-class missile cruisers in the air defense mission of protecting deployed aircraft carriers—a mission Copeman says needs to be preserved. All flattops have a “shotgun” cruiser that accompanies them throughout a deployment, but the missile ships are aging and, by 2025, only four will remain in service to protect the fleet’s 11 carriers. The Navy prefers cruisers over destroyers for the role because of the bigger ships’ extra missile fire control channels, their more senior commanders and a better ability to tow the carrier should it be disabled. While recommending against the Flight III, Copeman would continue building the existing DDG 51 Flight IIA variant until a new design is available. An April 9, 2014 press report states: The U.S. Navy is in the very early stages of developing a new destroyer—called the Future Surface Combatant—which will replace the existing Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and enter service by the early 2030s, Navy leaders told Military.com. Navy officials said it is much too early to speculate on hull design or shape for the new ship but lasers, on-board powergeneration systems, increased automation, next-generation weapons, sensors and electronics are all expected to figure prominently in the development of the vessel. The Future Surface Combatant will succeed and serve alongside the Navy’s current Flight III DDG 51 Arleigh Burkeclass destroyer program slated to being construction in 2016. Overall, the Secretary of the Navy’s long-range shipbuilding plan calls for construction of 22 Flight III DDGs, Navy officials said. There are a handful of early emerging requirements regarding what admirals want for the ship, Rear Adm. Tom Rowden, director of surface warfare, told Military.com in an interview. “I could not even draw a picture for you,” said Rowden, who went on to explain that greater automation and integrated electrical power are part of the calculus of early discussions. He emphasized that the new ship will leverage successful next-generation technologies already underway in other platforms such as the DDG 1000 destroyer, Littoral Combat Ship and Ford-class aircraft carriers. The Future Surface Combatant may draw from the DDG 1000’s high-tech electric drive system that propels the ship
20
|
April 07, 2015
while generating 58 megawatts of on-board electrical power. On-board power will be in high demand as lasers and directed energy weapons become more prominent, Rowden said. “We are moving all ahead with respect to the development of lasers as a weapon in the future. You can take the power that is generated on the ship and convert that into a fire control solution without having to shoot a missile that may cost a million to ten million,” Rowden explained.... The largest aspect of emphasis for the nascent Future Surface Combatant program is something Rowden called modularity, a term referring to a technological ability to rapidly and effectively make adjustments as needed. The new ship design will emphasize flexibility to ensure the platform keeps pace with fast- moving technological change and threats, he said.... “The modules that we install in the ship may have no bearing or resemblance to what needs to be there when we decommission the ship. The weapons and sensors will be different. We have to think about how to move through the design, manufacture and subsequent upgrades in the most cost-effective and affordable fashion. We need to design that into the ship,” he said.
Legislative Activity for FY16 FY16 Funding Request The Navy estimates the combined procurement cost of the two DDG-51s requested for procurement in FY16 at $3,522.7 million. A comparison with the cost of the two DDG-51s procured in FY15 suggests that, within the estimated combined cost of $3,522.7 million for the two FY16 DDG-51s, the Flight III DDG-51 might account for, very roughly, $2 billion, while the other DDG-51 might account for, very roughly, $1.5 billion. The potential difference of, very roughly, $500 million in cost between the two ships includes one-time design and change-order costs for modifying the DDG-51 design to the Flight III configuration, additional costs for the AMDR radar and associated electrical power and cooling equipment, and some loss of shipyard production learning curve benefits due to the change in the ship’s design. The two DDG-51s requested for procurement in FY16 have received a total of $373.0 million in prior-year advance procurement (AP) funding. The Navy’s proposed FY16 budget requests the remaining $3,149.7 million needed to complete the ships’ estimated combined procurement cost. The Navy’s proposed FY16 budget also requests $75.0 million in so-called cost-to- complete procurement funding to replace funding for DDG-51s procured in FY10-FY12 that was canceled by March 1, 2013, sequester. The Navy’s proposed FY16 budget also requests $433.4 million in procurement funding to complete construction of Zumwalt- (DDG-1000) class destroyers procured in prior years, and $241.8 million in research and development funding for development work on the AMDR. The funding request for the AMDR is contained in Program Element (PE) 0604522N (“Advanced Missile Defense Radar [AMDR] System”), which is line 118 in the Navy’s FY16 research and development account.
www.npeo-kmi.com
Naval Readiness ➥ Continued From pAGE 1 presence is possible because Navy planning and budget decisions continue to be guided by the three tenets the chief of naval operations (CNO) established when he first took office: Warfighting First, Operate Forward and Be Ready. Each of these tenets helps drive a strong focus on readiness—both now and in the future. Actions of Congress helped stabilize readiness by supporting increases over sequestered funding levels through the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, and the subsequent authorization and appropriations acts for FY14 and this year. Nonetheless, we have not yet recovered from the readiness impact of over a decade of combat operations, exacerbated by the imposition of a lengthy continuing resolution and followed by budget sequestration in FY13, just as we were beginning to reset the force. These circumstances created maintenance backlogs that have prevented us from getting ships back to the fleet on time and aircraft back on the flight line. We continue our efforts to rebuild the workforce in our public depots—both shipyards and aviation readiness centers—and reduce the number of lost operational days, but it will take years to dig out of a readiness hole. The FY16 Navy budget submission is designed to continue our readiness recovery, restoring our required contingency operations capacity by 2018-2020 while continuing to provide a sustainable forward presence. PB-16 is the minimum funding required to execute the nation’s defense strategy, though we still carry risks in two important mission areas, notably when confronted with a technologically advanced adversary or when forced to deny the objective of an opportunistic aggressor in a second region while already engaged in a major contingency. As the CNO stated in his recent testimony to the full committee, risk in our ability to deter and defeat aggression and project power despite anti-access/area-denial challenges mean “longer timelines to win, more ships and aircraft out of action in battle, more sailors, Marines and merchant mariners killed, and less credibility to deter adversaries and assure allies in the future.” That level of risk arises from capacity and readiness challenges as well as slower delivery of critical capabilities to the fleet, particularly in air and missile defense and overall ordnance capacity. My testimony today will focus on the current readiness of the Navy, and our plan, supported by our FY16 budget submission, to meet www.npeo-kmi.com
the challenges to delivering future readiness. If we return to a sequestered budget in FY16, we will not be able to execute the defense strategy as it is conveyed in the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review and a revision will be required.
Current Navy Operations and Readiness Employing a combination of forwarddeployed naval force ships homeported overseas and rotationally deploying units from CONUS, our Navy sustains a global presence of about 100 ships and submarines. Their combat power and other capabilities include the contributions of embarked carrier air wings or other aviation units, Marine expeditionary units or elements of a special purpose Marine air/ground task force, Coast Guard detachments and special operations units, among others. These capabilities are further enhanced by land-based or expeditionary Navy forces in theater. With additional ships training in home waters, approximately half the battle force is underway or deployed on any given day. Every hour of every day around the globe we are executing missions. The sun never sets on the U.S. Navy. Ballistic missile submarines sustain the most survivable leg of our nation’s nuclear triad. Carrier strike groups (CSGs), amphibious ready groups (ARGs) and attack submarines (SSNs) conduct named operations in support of the combatant commanders (COCOMs) or exercise with other nations to build the partnerships essential to the stability of the global system. Ballistic missile defense-capable cruisers and destroyers protect U.S. and allied sea and shore-based assets. Our units operate with other nations through exercises or through executing theater security cooperation plans; activities essential to the stability of the global system. As an example, last month, USS Fort Worth (LCS-3) practiced the Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea with the Chinese Navy, enhancing the professional 4 maritime relationship between the U.S. Seventh Fleet and the People’s Liberation Army-Navy. Our crews and platforms are trained and certified to execute their core capabilities across the spectrum of military operations and are ready to be re-tasked as required to meet the next challenge. This was the case in August 2014 when the George H.W. Bush CSG relocated from the Arabian Sea to the North Arabian Gulf and was on station, ready for combat operations, in less than 30 hours. The Navy is fundamentally
multimission and rapidly adjusts to meet new challenges that might require U.S. presence and power projection forces. Navy will continue to sustain the readiness of our deployed forces under our FY16 budget submission, but it will require several years to fully recover the capability to rapidly respond to COCOM requirements for a major contingency. In addition to our forces that are globally deployed today, combined requirements include: three extra CSGs and three ARGs to deploy within 30 days to respond to a major crisis. However, on average, we have only been able to keep one CSG and one ARG in this readiness posture, one-third of the requirement. Assuming the best case of an on-time, sufficient and stable budget with no major contingencies, we should be able to recover from accumulated backlogs by 2018 for CSGs and 2020 for ARGs—five-plus years after the first round of sequestration. Recovery of readiness also requires a commitment to protect the time required to properly maintain and modernize our capital-intensive force and to conduct full-spectrum training. Our updated force generation model—the Optimized Fleet Response Plan (OFRP)—is designed to meet this commitment as well as better align all elements that support readiness development. Achieving full readiness entails the restoration of required capacity to our public shipyards and aviation depots—primarily through hiring and workforce development. In addition to aviation depots backlogs, we must also overcome the challenges of extending the service life of our legacy F/A-18 Hornet aircraft to 10,000 hours. Underlying our plan is the need to operate the battle force at a sustainable level over the long term. With this plan, we recover our material readiness, keep faith with our sailors and their families by providing more predictability in the operations schedule, and control the pace of deployments.
Meeting Our Readiness Challenges The Navy FY16 budget request continues to fully support the readiness of our deployed forces. The budget request sustains our credible and survivable sea-based strategic deterrent and with continued overseas contingency operations (OCO) funding meets the adjudicated requirements of the FY16 Global Force Management Allocation Plan (GFMAP). This includes at least two CSGs and two ARGs, operating forward, fully missioncapable and certified for deployment. We continue april 07, 2015
|
21
to employ innovative approaches, including the use of new platforms like the joint high-speed vessel and the mobile landing platform, to ensure the Navy/Marine Corps team continues to meet the security requirements of our nation, while providing the opportunity to reset and sustain the material condition of the force. Greater use of capable auxiliaries helps relieve pressure on our overstretched amphibious fleet.
Generating the Force Navy readiness is at its lowest point in many years. Budget reductions forced cuts to afloat and ashore operations, generated ship and aircraft maintenance backlogs, and compelled us to extend unit deployments. Since 2013, many ships have been on deployment for eight to 10 months or longer, exacting a cost on the resiliency of our people, sustainability of our equipment, and service life of our ships. Navy has managed force generation using the Fleet Response Plan (FRP) since it was adopted in 2003 and fully implemented in 2007. This cyclic process was designed to support readiness by synchronizing periodic deep maintenance and modernization with the fleet training required to achieve GFMAP forward presence objectives and provide contingency response capacity. However, the continued employment of our contingency response units to generate increased presence over the past decade has not only increased maintenance requirements, it has also limited their availability to complete required maintenance and training. As with previous testimony of the last few years, this practice is unsustainable. In 2013 and 2014, for example, naval forces provided 6 percent and 5 percent more forward presence, respectively, than allocated due to emergent operations and unanticipated contingencies. This unbudgeted employment amounted to greater than 2,200 days in theater over that approved on the global force management plan in 2013 and greater than 1,800 days in theater over in 2014. We should operate the fleet at sustainable presence levels in order for the Navy to meet requirements, while still maintaining material readiness, giving ships time to modernize, and allowing them to reach their expected service lives. This year, Navy began implementation of the Optimized Fleet Response Plan (OFRP) to address these challenges. Designed to stabilize maintenance schedules and provide sufficient time to maintain and train the force while continuing to meet operational commitments, OFRP aligns supporting processes and resources to improve overall readiness. Furthermore, it provides a more stable and predictable schedule for our sailors and 22
|
April 07, 2015
their families. We will continue OFRP implementation across the FYDP.
Ship Operations The baseline Ship Operations request for FY16 provides an average of 45 underway steaming days per quarter for deployed ships and 20 days non-deployed, and would support the highest priority presence requirements of the combatant commanders to include global presence for two CSGs, two ARGs and an acceptable number of deployed submarines. With OCO, ship operations are funded at 58 steaming days deployed/24 days non-deployed. The requested funding will meet the full adjudicated FY16 GFMAP ship presence requirement, support higher operational tempo for deployed forces and provide full operating funding for individual ship-level maintenance and training.
Air Operations (Flying Hour Program) The Flying Hour Program funds operations, intermediate and unit-level maintenance, and training for ten Navy carrier air wings, three Marine Corps air wings, fleet air support aircraft, training squadrons, reserve forces and various enabling activities. The FY16 baseline program provides funding to build required levels of readiness for deployment and sustain the readiness of units that are deployed. Navy and Marine Corps aviation forces are intended to achieve an average T-2.5/T-2.0 USN/USMC training readiness requirement with the exception of non-deployed
F/A-18 (A-D) squadrons. Because of shortfalls in available aircraft due to depot throughput issues, these squadrons are funded at the maximum executable level while non-deployed, resulting in an overall readiness average of T-2.8/2.4. All squadrons deploy meeting the T-2.0 readiness requirement and OCO provides for additional deployed operating tempo above baseline funding.
Spares The replenishment of existing, “off the shelf� spares used in ship and aircraft maintenance is funded through the Ship Operations and Flying Hour Programs. With OCO, those programs are fully funded in PB16. The provision of initial and outfitting spares for new platforms, systems and modifications is funded through the spares accounts. Traditionally, these accounts have been funded below the requirement due to limited funding or past execution issues. Due to the ultimate impact on readiness, PB16 sustains executable funding levels to reduce cross-decking and cannibalization of parts driven by large backlogs. This is complemented by Navy-wide efforts to improve execution of these accounts, which have shown considerable success in aviation spares over the last two years, and continues to be a focus area.
Readiness Investments Required to Sustain the Force: Ship and Aircraft Maintenance The Navy maintenance budget requests are built upon proven sustainment models. They www.npeo-kmi.com
are focused on continuing our ongoing investment to improve material readiness of our surface combatants, and support the integration of new capabilities into naval aviation. The FY16 baseline budget request funds 80 percent of the ship maintenance requirement across the force, addressing both depot and intermediate level maintenance for carriers, submarines and surface ships. OCO funding provides the remaining 20 percent of the full baseline requirement to continue reduction of the backlog of life cycle maintenance in our surface ships after years of high operational tempo and deferred maintenance. This year, the additional OCO for maintenance reset ($557 million) includes funding for aircraft carriers as well to address increased wear and tear outside of the propulsion plant as a result of high operational demands. Since much of this work can only be accomplished in drydock, maintenance reset must continue across the FYDP. To address the increased workload in our public shipyards and improve on-time delivery of ships and submarines back to the fleet, the FY16 budget grows the shipyard workforce, reaching a high of 33,500 personnel in FY17, with additional investment in workforce training and development. One attack submarine (SSN) availability is moved to the private sector in FY16 with plans for two additional SSN availabilities in the private sector in FY17 to mitigate total workload. The FY16 budget includes $89.5 million in MILCON projects and $142M in restoration and modernization projects for naval shipyards in FY16, for a total capital investment of 8.7 percent in these important facilities. The Fleet Readiness Centers (FRCs), Navy’s aviation depots, have been challenged to recover full productivity after hiring freezes, furlough, and overtime restrictions in FY13. They face a growing workload, particularly for the additional service life extension of our legacy F/A-18 Hornets. FRCs are aggressively hiring with a goal of reaching full capacity by the end of this year. The hiring of additional engineering support to address new repairs required to reach 10,000 hours of service life, reallocation of some of the workforce, and contracting for private sector support have all been undertaken to complete existing work-in-process at the FRCs, particularly for legacy Hornets. Field teams have been increased to improve flight line maintenance and understanding of the material condition of airframes coming to the depots. As new repairs and parts are identified and approved, kits are developed to ensure long-lead parts are readily available. As a result of these challenges, the Aviation Depot Maintenance program is funded to an executable level of 77 percent in baseline, 83 www.npeo-kmi.com
percent with OCO for new work to be inducted in FY16. This funding level supports a total of 564 airframes and 1,834 engines/engine modules to be repaired.
Navy Expeditionary Combat Forces Navy expeditionary combat forces support ongoing combat operations and enduring combatant commander requirements by deploying maritime security, construction, explosive ordnance disposal, logistics and intelligence units to execute missions across the full spectrum of naval, joint and combined operations. In FY16, baseline funding is improved significantly over 10 prior years, providing 80% of the enduring requirement, with OCO supporting an additional 15% of the requirement.
Readiness Investments Required to Sustain the Force: Shore Infrastructure The Navy’s shore infrastructure, both in the United States and overseas, provides essential support to our fleet. In addition to supporting operational and combat readiness, it is also a critical element in the quality of life and quality of work for our sailors, Navy civilians and their families. As we have done for several years, we continue to take risk in the long-term viability of our shore infrastructure to sustain fleet readiness under the current funding level. However, in FY16 our facilities sustainment is improved to 84 percent of the OSD Facilities Sustainment Model versus 70 percent this year. When restoring and modernizing our infrastructure, we intend to prioritize life/ safety issues and efficiency improvements to existing infrastructure and focus on repairing only the
key components of our mission critical facilities. Less critical projects will remain deferred. Overall, the Department of the Navy will exceed the mandated capital investment of 6 percent across all shipyards and depots described in 10 USC 2476 with a 7.4 percent total investment in FY16. With the support provided by the Congress, Navy is on track to exceed the minimum investment in FY15 as well.
Looking Ahead As we look to the future, the Navy will continue to be globally deployed to provide a credible and survivable strategic deterrent and to support the mission requirements of the regional combatant commanders. Global operations continue to assume an increasingly maritime focus, and our Navy will sustain its forward presence, warfighting focus, and readiness preparations to continue operating where it matters, when it matters. We see no future reduction of these requirements and we have focused the FY16 Navy budget submission to address the challenges to achieving the necessary readiness to execute our missions. Any funding below this submission requires a revision of America’s defense strategy. Sequestration would outright damage the national security of this country. In closing, we should recall that our sailors are the most important element of the future readiness of the Navy. Fortunately, they are the highest quality, most diverse force in our history and continue to make us the finest Navy in the world. As the CNO says, “They are our asymmetric advantage.” On behalf of all our sailors (active and reserve), civilians and their families, let me reiterate our appreciation for the continued support of the members of the committee. april 07, 2015
|
23
Contract Awards
2
April
24
|
The Navy is awarding indefinitedelivery/indefinite-quantity, multipleaward contracts to 464 contractors that will provide for their competition for service requirements solicited by Naval Sea Systems Command, Naval Air Systems Command, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, Naval Supply Systems Command, Military Sealift Command, Naval Facilities Command, Strategic Systems Programs, Office of Naval Research and the Marine Corps. The 22 functional service areas within the scope of the contracts include: 1) research and development support; 2) engineering system engineering and process engineering support; 3) modeling, simulation, stimulation and analysis support; 4) prototyping, pre-production, model-making and fabric support; 5) system design documentation and technical data support; 6) software engineering, development, programming and network support; 7) reliability, maintainability and availability support; 8) human factors, performance and usability engineering support; 9) system safety engineering support; 10) configuration management support; 11) quality assurance support; 12) information system development, information assurance and information technology support; 13) ship inactivation and disposal support; 14) interoperability, test and evaluation, trials support; 15) measurement facilities, range and instrumentation support; 16) acquisition logistics support; 17) supply and provisioning support; 18) training support; 19) in-service engineering, fleet introduction, installation and checkout support; 20) program support; 21) functional and administrative support; and 22) public affairs and multimedia support. These contracts are in addition to the existing 2,420 contracts previously awarded under the SeaPort Enhanced (SeaPort-e) acquisition program for services procurements. The government estimates a maximum of $5,300,000,000 of services will be procured per year via orders issued under the SeaPort-e multiple award contracts. The award of
April 07, 2015
these contracts is a result of the SeaPort-e Rolling Admissions solicitation. The SeaPort-e acquisition is comprised of seven regional zones in which task orders will be competed based upon the principal place of performance. These awards contain provisions to set aside requirements for small businesses, service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses, 8a business development program and historically underutilized business zone small businesses. Under these multiple award contracts, each contractor will be provided a fair opportunity to compete for individual task orders solicited within their zone or zones of performance. The awards will have four-year periods of performance. These contracts were competitively procured via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online website, with 612 offers received and 464 contracts awarded. Contract funds will be obligated at the time of task order award and, multiple funding types with varying expiration dates may be used, consistent with the purpose for which the funds were appropriated. The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division, Dahlgren, Va., is the contracting activity (N00178-15-D-8053 -- N0017815-D-8516). The list of contractors involved are: 11th Hour Search LLC doing business as 11 Hour Service, Springfield, Va.; 2rbConsulting Inc., Kirkland, Wash.; 3T Federal Solutions LLC, Austin, Texas; 838 Inc., Folsom, Calif.; Abacus Technology Corp., Chevy Chase, Md.; Acadia Cyber Solutions LLC, Rockville, Md.; AccessAgility LLC doing business as AccessAgility, Bethesda, Md.; ActioNet Inc., Vienna, Va.; Adsys Controls Inc., Irvine, Calif.; Advance Digital Systems Inc. doing business as ADS, Fairfax, Va.; Advanced Technologies and Laboratories International Inc., Gaithersburg, Md.; AEEC, LLC doing business as American Consultants, Reston, Va.; Aerosol Monitoring & Analysis, Hanover, Md.; Aerospace Engineering & Support Inc. doing business as AES, Ogden, Utah; AG GRACE Inc., Frederick, Md.; Agile
Communications Inc., Thousand Oaks, Calif.; Airport Properties Inc. doing business as AP IT Solutions, California, Md.; Alaris Companies, Petaluma, Calif.; All Native Inc., Winnebago, Neb.; AllCom Global Services Inc., Lake Saint Louis, Mo.; Alliant Keystone Consulting Partners LLC, Houston, Texas; Altus Technical Solutions LLC doing business as Altus Technology Solutions, Severn, Md.; AMEC Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure Inc., Blue Bell, Pa.; Anglicoelectric LLC, North Charleston, S.C.; ANR Consulting Group Inc., Addison, Texas; Applied Information Sciences Inc., Reston, Va.; Applied Intellect, Wexford, Pa.; Applied Techniques Corp. doing business as ATC, Silverdale, Wash.; Appsential LLC, Bethesda, Md.; Aptima Inc., Woburn, Mass.; Archimedes Global Inc., Wesley Chapel, Fla.; Ardmore Consulting Group Inc., Atlanta, Ga.; ARGO Systems LLC, Hanover, Md.; Arrow Solutions Group Inc., Billings, Mont.; Arrowpoint Corp., Alexandria, Va.; Artel LLC, Herndon, Va.; ASJ IT Services LLC, Chesapeake, Va.; Assured Consulting Solutions LLC, Fairfax, Va.; Atlas Group Ltd., Fairfax, Va.; Atlas Technologies Inc., North Charleston, S.C.; Audavi Corp., San Jose, Calif.; Automation Technologies Inc. doing business as ATI, Columbia, Md.; Avatar Partners Inc, Huntington Beach, Calif.; Avening Management and Technical Services LLC doing business as AveningTech, La Plata, Md.; AVUM Inc., Agoura, Calif.; Bacik Group LLC, Pelham, Ala.; Banda Group International LLC, Chandler, Ariz.; Banneker Industries Inc., North Smithfield, R.I.; Barquin and Associates Inc. doing business as Barquin International, Washington, D.C.; Bart & Associates Inc. doing business as B&A, McLean, Va.; BB&E Inc., Northville, Mich.; BCF Solutions Inc., Arlington, Va.; Beat LLC doing business as Business Enabled Acquisition & Technology, San Antonio, Texas; Bennett Aerospace Inc., Cary, N.C.; Biscotti, Giacomo doing business as ATCSI, Chesapeake, Va.; Biswas Information Technology Solutions Inc. doing business as BITS, Herndon,
www.npeo-kmi.com
Compiled by KMI Media Group staff
Va.; Black Knight Technology Inc., Fredericksburg, Va.; Black Tree Group LLC doing business as Black Tree Group, Tampa, Fla.; Brace Management Group Inc., Upper Marlboro, Md.; Brockwell Technologies Inc., Huntsville, Ala.; Buchanan & Edwards Inc., Arlington, Va.; Burns & McDonnell Engineering Co. Inc., Kansas City, Mo.; Business Management Associates Inc. , Alexandria, Va.; By Light Professional Services Inc., Arlington, Va.; C² Technologies Inc., Vienna, Va.; C4 Planning Solutions LLC, Blythe, Ga.; Canterbury Resources Inc., Alexandria, Va.; Canvas Inc., Huntsville, Ala.; Capital Strategies LLC, Leesburg, Va.; CB&I Federal Services LLC, Baton Rouge, La.; Celerity Government Solutions LLC doing business as Xcelerate Solutions, McLean, Va.; Centech Group Inc., Falls Church, Va.; Centeva LLC, South Jordan, Utah; Certified Technical Experts Inc. doing business as CTE, Montgomery, Ala.; Chakrabarti Management Consultancy Inc. doing business as CMCI, Fairfax, Va.; Chenault-Herbert, Johnnie Maria doing business as MCH Consulting Services, Suffolk, Va.; Chenega Support Services LLC, San Antonio, Texas; Cherokee Energy Management & Construction Inc., Virginia Beach, Va.; Cherokee Information Services Inc. doing business as CIS, Alexandria, Va.; Chimera Enterprises International Inc., Edgewood, Md.; Chitra Productions LLC, Virginia Beach, Va.; Chugach Information Technology Inc., Anchorage, Alaska; Clarus Group LLC, Overland Park, Kan.; Clason Point Partners Inc., Yonkers, N.Y.; Cline-Morin Associates, Huntsville, Ala.; Command Post Technologies Inc., Suffolk, Va.; Companion Data Services LLC, Columbia, S.C.; Competitive Innovations LLC doing business as CI, Arlington, Va.; Computek Inc. doing business as Tidewater Naval Architects, Portsmouth, Va.; Computing Technologies Inc., Fairfax, Va.; Control Point Corp., Goleta, Calif.; Conviso Inc., Luray, Va.; CorDel Information Security Services LLC doing business as CorDel, Sunnyvale, Calif.; Cornerstone Defense, Ellicott City, Md.; Corp of Mercer University, The doing
www.npeo-kmi.com
business as Mercer Engrg Res Ctr, Warner Robins, Ga.; Cosmic Software Technology Inc., Princeton, N.J.; Cowan & Associates Inc., Arlington, Va.; Creative Information Technology Inc., Falls Church, Va.; Creek Technologies Co. doing business as Creek Tech, Beavercreek, Ohio; Crescent Allied Solutions Inc., Irvine, Calif.; CRI Advantage Inc., Boise, Idaho; Crisis Response Co. LLC, Roanoke, Texas; Critical-Path-Solutions Inc., Moorpark, Calif.; Cubic Applications Inc., San Diego, Calif.; D9Tech Resources LLC, Virginia Beach, Va.; Dane LLC, Chantilly, Va.; Darkblade Systems Corp., Stafford, Va.; Data Intelligence LLC, Marlton, N.J.; Data Matrix Solutions Inc., Herndon, Va.; Linda M. Davies doing business as Comprehensive Professional and Proposal Services (CP2S), Fredericksburg, Va.; Dayton T. Brown Inc., Bohemia, N.Y.; Defense Acquisition & Logistics Solutions LLC doing business as DALS, Norfolk, Va.; Defense Venture Holdings LLC doing business as DVH, Virginia Beach, Va.; DefTec Corp. doing business as DefTec, Huntsville, Ala.; Delex Systems Inc., Herndon, Va.; DeVilliers Technology Solutions LLC doing business as DeVil-Tech, Stafford, Va.; DeVine Consulting Inc., Fremont, Calif.; Dial & Associates LLC, California, Md.; DigiFlight Inc., Columbia, Md.; Digital Cloak LLC, Stafford, Va.; Disk Enterprise Solutions Inc., Lexington Park, Md.; Dnutch Associates Inc., Methuen, Mass.; Dominion Energy Management Inc., Ashland, Va.; Donnelly & Moore Inc., New City, N.Y.; DWBH LLC doing business as DWBH, McLean, Va.; Dynamic Animation Systems Inc. doing business as DAS, Fairfax, Va.; Dynamic Aviation Group Inc., Bridgewater, Va.; E. K. Fox & Associates Ltd., Fairfax, Va.; E.M. Norton Enterprises Inc. doing business as EMN Defense Services, San Diego, Calif.; E3 Federal Solutions LLC, Arlington, Va.; Eagle TG LLC, New Braunfels, Texas; Eiden Systems Corp., Charlottesville, Va.; Elevan LLC doing business as Elevate Systems, San Antonio, Texas; ELEVI Associates LLC, Columbia, Md.; EliteTech Associates LLC
doing business as EliteTech Associates, San Diego, Calif.; Emerging Technology Ventures Inc., Alamogordo, N.M.; EmeSec Inc. doing business as EMESEC, Reston, Va.; Emprise Corp., Ledyard, Conn.; Endyna Inc., McLean, Va.; Engenuity LLC, Edgewater, Md.; Enterprise Solutions & Management, Chula Vista, Calif.; Enterprise Systems Management LLC, Leonardtown, Md.; Envistacom LLC, Atlanta, Ga.; Ernst & Young LLP, Washington, D.C.; eScience & Technology Solutions Inc., North Charleston, S.C.; Evoke Research and Consulting LLC, Arlington, Va.; Excella Consulting Inc., Arlington, Va.; Excelsior Consulting Services Inc., Westmont, Ill.; Expression Networks LLC, McLean, Va.; FEDITC LLC doing business as Federal Integrated Engineering Consulting, Rockville, Md.; Fednova Inc., Alexandria, Va.; Filius Corp., Centreville, Va.; First Division Consulting Inc., Arlington, Va.; Five Stones Research Corp., Brownsboro, Ala.; Fluor Intercontinental Inc., Greenville, S.C.; Foresight Engineering P.C., Reston, Va.; FreeAlliance.com LLC, Washington, D.C.; Frontier Technology Inc., Goleta, Calif.; Full Circle Computing Inc., Exton, Pa.; G & H International Services Inc., Washington, D.C.; G Force Inc., Washington, D.C.; GAMA-1 Technologies LLC, Greenbelt, Md.; GAP Solutions Inc. doing business as GAPSI, Reston, Va.; GeminiTech LLC doing business as GeminiTech, Waipahu, Hawaii; Gemini Technologies Inc., Warrington, Pa.; General Infomatics Inc., McLean, Va.; Geowireless Inc., North Charleston, S.C.; Global Data Solutions Inc. doing business as GDS, Bloomington, Ill.; Global Infotek Inc., Reston, Va.; Global Management Systems Inc. doing business as GMSI, Washington, D.C.; Global Productivity Solutions LLC, Clinton Township, Mich.; Global Research and Technology Corp., Camarillo, Calif.; Global Technical Services LLC, Anchorage, Alaska; Government Tactical Solutions LLC, Potomac Falls, Va.; GPH Consulting LLC, Charleston, S.C.; Green Expert Technology Inc., Cherry Hill, N.J.; GRT Corp.,
april 07, 2015
|
25
Contract Awards Stamford, Conn.; Guardian Moving and Storage Co. Inc., Hunt Valley, Md.; Guardians of Honor LLC, Oxon Hill, Md.; Guerrero Professional Services Inc. doing business as Dr. Diesel Technologies, Temecula, Calif.; Cignus Consulting LLC, Leesburg, Va.; Halfaker and Associates LLC, Arlington, Va.; Hana Industries Inc., Honolulu, Hawaii; Harris IT Services Corp., Herndon, Va.; Hawk Associates LLC, Sierra Vista, Ariz.; HazTrain Inc., Waldorf, Md.; Helios Remote Sensing Systems Inc., Rome, N.Y.; Higgins, Hermansen, Banikas LLC, Reston, Va.; High Side Technology LLC, California, Md.; HigherEchelon Inc., Arlington, Va.; Highlight Technologies LLC, Fairfax, Va.; Horizon Industries Ltd., Vienna, Va.; The Human Geo Group, Arlington, Va.; Hyperion Inc., Reston, Va.; IAP Worldwide Services Inc., Cape Canaveral, Fla.; i-Mazing Solutions Inc., Virginia Beach, Va.; Impact Makers Inc., Richmond, Va.; Inalab Consulting Inc., Stafford, Va.; Independent Strategic Management Solutions Inc. doing business as ISMSolutions, Richland, Wash.; Indigenous Intelligence LLC doing business as Indigenous, Glen Burnie, Md.; IndraSoft Inc., Reston, Va.; Indtai Inc., Sterling, Va.; Infinity Systems Engineering LLC, Colorado Springs, Colo.; Ingenicomm Inc., Chantilly, Va.; Innovative Technical Solutions LLC, Paducah, Ky.; Innovative Technologies Inc. doing business as ITI, Chantilly, Va.; Innovatus Technology Consulting, San Diego, Calif.; Inode Ink Corp., Westminster, Colo.; Inserso Corp., Vienna, Va.; Integrated Data Services Inc., El Segundo, Calif.; Integrated Design Solutions LLC, Bohemia, N.Y.; Integrated Finance and Accounting Solutions LLC doing business as IFAS, Woodbridge, Va.; Integrated Video Solutions LLC doing business as IVS, Chesapeake, Va.; Integrity Consulting Engineering & Security Solutions LLC, Frederick, Md.; Intelesis Technologies Corp. doing business as Intelesis, San Diego, Calif.; IntellecTechs Inc., Virginia Beach, Va.; Intepros Federal Inc., Washington, D.C.; Intercom Federal Systems Corp., Leesburg, Va.; Invictus Technical
26
|
April 07, 2015
Solutions LLC, Roseburg, Ore.; Iron Wind Associates LLC, Ashburn, Va.; ISHPI Information Technologies Inc. doing business as ISHPI, Mount Pleasant, S.C.; iSoft Solutions LLC, Virginia Beach, Va.; J. Aguinaldo Group Inc., Hollywood, Md.; JD Ross Consulting LLC, Fredericksburg, Va.; JLGov LLC, Virginia Beach, Va.; Johnston Pierce Engineering LLC, Duluth, Ga.; JTEL Solutions LLC, Fredericksburg, Va.; Kairos Inc., California, Md.; Karagozian & Case, Glendale, Calif.; KAYA Associates Inc., Huntsville, Ala.; Kearney & Co. P.C., Alexandria, Va.; Kelley's Logistics Support Systems Inc. doing business as KLSS, Dayton, Ohio; KENTCO Corp. doing business as ProteQ, Reston, Va.; Kerberos International Inc., Temple, Texas; KeThink SFS, Lexington Park, Md.; Key Group Inc., Fillmore, Calif.; Key Innovations Inc., Orlando, Fla.; Key Management Solutions LLC doing business as KMS, Colorado Springs, Colo.; Keystone Advisors LLC, South Holland, Ill.; Kforce Government Solutions Inc., Fairfax, Va.; Kinetic Multimedia Systems Inc., Fort Lauderdale, Fla.; KM Management Group LLC doing business as KM Systems Group, Arlington, Va.; KMEA, National City, Calif.; Knowledge Based Systems Inc., College Station, Texas; Kova Global Inc., Virginia Beach, Va.; KSJ & Associates Inc., Falls Church, Va.; Kyzen Consulting Services Inc. doing business as Nu Staffing Solutions, West Palm Beach, Fla.; Land Sea Air Autonomy LLC doing business as LSA Autonomy, Westminster, Md.; Leverage Information Systems Inc. doing business as Federal Network Services, Woodinville, Wash.; Liberty IT Solutions LLC, Reston, Va.; Limelight Consulting Services Inc., Mechanicsburg, Pa.; Lingual Information System Technologies Inc. doing business as LG-TEK, Elkridge, Md.; Link Tech, LLC doing business as Link Technologies, Las Vegas, Nev.; LJT & Associates Inc., Columbia, Md.; Loyal Source Government Services LLC, Orlando, Fla.; LRH Group LLC, Stafford, Va.; Lynker Technologies LLC, Leesburg, Va.; Lynxnet LLC, Suffolk, Va.; MDA Technologies LLC doing business as MDA
Technologies, Woodbridge, Va.; Maden Tech Consulting Inc. doing business as Maden Technologies, Arlington, Va.; Mainstay Information Solutions, Arlington, Va.; Management and Administrative Support LLC, Glen Burnie, Md.; Marine Design Dynamics Inc. doing business as MDD, Washington, D.C.; Markesman LLC doing business as Markesman Group, Newport News, Va.; MARRS Services Inc., Buena Park, Calif.; Mathematical Research Inc. doing business as MRI Technologies, Houston, Texas; MATHTECH Inc., Falls Church, Va.; MDA Information Systems LLC, Gaithersburg, Md.; Media Fusion Inc. doing business as MFI, Huntsville, Ala.; MICRO USA Inc., Poway, Calif.; Microhealth LLC, Vienna, Va.; Military Personnel Services Corp., Falls Church, Va.; Mora Consultants, San Diego, Calif.; MorganFranklin Consulting LLC doing business as MorganFranklin, McLean, Va.; Na Alii Consulting & Sales LLC doing business as Na Alii, Honolulu, Hawaii; Nationwide IT Services Inc., Alexandria, Va.; Native Hawaiian Veterans LLC, Honolulu, Hawaii; Neany Inc., Hollywood, Md.; Nester Consulting LLC doing business as Government CIO, Washington, D.C.; Network Security Services LLC doing business as NSS, Vienna, Va.; Nevada System of Higher Education doing business as Desert Research Institute, Reno, Nev.; NextGen Inc., Fairfax, Va.; Nextrinsic Corp., Southfield, Mich.; Nextstep Technology Inc. doing business as Rightstep Services, Morgan Hill, Calif.; n-Link Corp., Bend, Ore.; Noovis LLC, Hanover, Md.; NorthTide Group LLC, Dulles, Va.; NTT Data Federal Services Inc., Vienna, Va.; Oakland Consulting Group Inc., Lanham, Md.; Obera LLC, Herndon, Va.; Open San Consulting LLC, Atlanta, Ga.; OPTECH LLC, Troy, Mich.; Optimal Technologies International LLC doing business as OTI, Orlando, Fla.; Optimum Software Solutions Inc., Tallahassee, Fla.; Organic Motion Inc., New York, N.Y.; Oroday Inc. doing business as Digital Consulting Services, Newbury Park, Calif.; Osi Vision LLC, San Antonio, Texas; OTD Solutions & Services LLC, North Charleston, S.C.;
www.npeo-kmi.com
Compiled by KMI Media Group staff
O-Tech Solutions LLC, Green Bay, Wis.; PAE Applied Technologies LLC, Fort Worth, Texas; Pagnotta Engineering Inc., Exton, Pa.; Panaceapro Corp., Fairfax, Va.; Paratusec LLC, Warrenton, Va.; Parra Consulting Group Inc., Middletown, Md.; Iode Inc. doing business as I/O Test, Salt Lake City, Utah; PEMCCO Inc., Virginia Beach, Va.; People, Technology and Processes LLC, Lakeland, Fla.; PeopleTec Inc. doing business as Peopletec, Huntsville, Ala.; Performix Consulting LLC doing business as: Performix Consulting, McLean, Va.; Phase One Consulting Group Inc., Alexandria, Va.; Phoenix Data Corp., Indianapolis, Ind.; Pioneer Technologies Inc., Fairfax, Va.; PITSC Inc., Jacksonville, Fla.; PL Systems LLC, Centreville, Va.; Plexus Installations Inc. doing business as Plexus Communications Group, Baltimore, Md.; Point Rock Solutions LLC, Lansdowne, Va.; Potomac River Enterprise Solutions LLC doing business as PRES, Fredericksburg, Va.; Pragmatics Inc., Reston, Va.; Precision Air Inc., Manning, S.C.; Premier Inc. doing business as Premier Analysis, Falls Church, Va.; Prevailance Inc., Virginia Beach, Va.; Product Data Integration Technologies Inc. doing business as Modulant, North Charleston, S.C.; Productivity Apex Inc., Orlando, Fla.; PROJECTXYZ Inc., Huntsville, Ala.; Proofpoint Systems Inc. doing business as Proofpoint, Los Altos, Calif.; ProSidian Consulting LLC, Charlotte, N.C.; PULAU Corp., Orlando, Fla.; Qnexis Inc., Reston, Va.; Quality Aero Inc. doing business as Acquisition Logistics Engrg, Worthington, Ohio; Quantum Dynamics Inc., McLean, Va.; Radiation Safety & Control Services Inc. doing business as RSCS, Stratham, N.H.; RBR-Technologies, Annapolis, Maryland; The Red Gate Group Ltd., Chantilly, Va.; Red River Computer Co. Inc., Claremont, N.H.; Reliable Systems Solutions LLC doing business as RSS Logistics, Orlando, Fla.; ReMilNet LLC, Jacksonville, Fla.; Renegade Technology Systems Inc., Reston, Va.; The RHarvey Group LLC, McLean, Va.; Ricardo Inc., Belleville, Mich.; Rigil Corp., Lorton, Va.; Riptide Software Inc., Oviedo, Fla.; RMW
www.npeo-kmi.com
Associates LLC doing business as RMW Associates, Camp Springs, Md.; Rohmann Services Inc. doing business as RSI, San Antonio, Texas; Rome Research Corp. doing business as RRC, Rome, N.Y.; RPI Group Inc., Fredericksburg, Va.; Ryan Consulting Group Inc., Indianapolis, Ind.; Saile Technologies doing business as OnBridge Technologies, Foothill Ranch, Calif.; SAWTST LLC, Peachtree City, Ga.; Science and Management Resources Inc. doing business as SMR, Pensacola, Fla.; Scientific and Commercial Systems Corp. doing business as SCSC Quality Assurance Services, Falls Church, Va.; Seaward Services Inc., New Albany, Ind.; Secure Data Inc., O Fallon, Ill.; Sehlke Consulting LLC, Arlington, Va.; SelectTech Services Corp., Centerville, Ohio; Seville Staffing LLC, Chicago, Ill.; Si Global Inc., West Point, Ga.; Siena Group LLC, The doing business as A&M Restoration Services, Cocoa Beach, Fla.; SigmaRiver LLC, Front Royal, Va.; Signet Technologies Inc., Beltsville, Md.; Silver Bear Technologies Inc. doing business as SBT, Stafford, Va.; Sinergy Solutions LLC, Triangle, Va.; SJ Technologies Inc., Buford, Ga.; Skyward Ltd., Dayton, Ohio; SMS Data Products Group Inc. doing business as SMS, McLean, Va.; Social Intelligence Corp., Santa Barbara, Calif.; Sonawane WebDynamics Inc., Ashburn, Va.; Southeast Safety Solutions LLC doing business as SES Solutions, Huntsville, Ala.; SPC Business Consulting, Waldorf, Md.; Special Applications Group LLC, Tampa, Fla.; Spectrum Comm Inc., Newport News, Va.; Spotswood Consulting doing business as SC Wireless Solutions, Huntington Beach, Calif.; SRR International Inc., Loxahatchee, Fla.; Stafford Consulting Co. Inc., Fairfax, Va.; Starry Associates Inc., Annapolis, Md.; StellarPeak Corp., McLean, Va.; Storsoft Technology Corp., Tampa, Fla.; Strategic Alliance Business Group LLC, Arlington, Va.; Strategic Communications LLC, Louisville, Ky.; Strategic Resolution Experts Inc. doing business as S R E, Martinsburg, W.Va.; Strategic Resources Inc., McLean, Va.;
Strategic Ventures Consulting Group LLC, Falls Church, Va.; Sumaria Systems Inc., Danvers, Mass.; Sylvain Consulting Inc. doing business as SAI, Albuquerque, N.M.; Symtech Corp., Sarasota, Fla.; Syneren Technologies Corp., College Park, Md.; Synergy Business Innovation & Solutions Inc., Arlington, Va.; Synergy ECP LLC doing business as Synergy ECP, Columbia, Md.; Synesis7 Corp., Butte, Mont.; Syngineering LLC, Annandale, Va.; System Dynamics International Inc. doing business as SDI, Huntsville, Ala.; System Modeling Experts LLC doing business as SME, McLean, Va.; Systems and Proposal Engineering Co. doing business as SPEC Innovations, Manassas, Va.; Systems Integration/ Modeling and Simulation Inc., Tullahoma, Tenn.; Systems Research Group Inc. doing business as SRG, Longwood, Fla.; Systems Support Alternatives Inc. doing business as SSA, Alexandria, Va.; Syzygy Technologies Inc., San Diego, Calif.; T.J. Drafting & Design Inc. doing business as T.J., Christmas, Fla.; T3W Business Solutions Inc., San Diego, Calif.; Tactical Electronics & Military Supply LLC, Broken Arrow, Okla.; TATE Inc., Stafford, Va.; Taygeta Scientific Inc., Monterey, Calif.; TConneX Inc., McLean, Va.; TD&S Associates Inc. doing business as Technology Decisions & Solutions, State College, Pa.; TDI Technologies Inc., King of Prussia, Pa.; TechAnax LLC, Montclair, Va.; Technologist Inc. doing business as Technologist, Vienna, Va.; Technology Management Co. Inc. doing business as TMC, Albuquerque, N.M.; TechOp Solutions International Inc. doing business as TechOp, Stafford, Va.; Teknologic LLC, Edmonds, Wash.; Tellenger Inc., Rockville, Md.; Teya Services LLC, Anchorage, Alaska; Thousand Oaks Research and Development Inc., Riverside, Calif.; TMG Inc. doing business as The Moore Group, Norfolk, Va.; Torres Advanced Enterprise Solutions LLC, Falls Church, Va.; Total Technology Inc., Cherry Hill, N.J.; Trailblazer Innovations Inc., Amherst, Va.; Trident Proposal Management Inc. doing business as Red Sky Production
april 07, 2015
|
27
Contract Awards Services, San Diego, Calif.; Trident Technical Solutions LLC doing business as Ardent Eagle Solutions, St. Petersburg, Fla.; Tridentis PLLC, Washington, D.C.; Triumph Aerospace Systems, Newport News Inc., Newport News, Va.; Twintron Data Systems Inc. doing business as Twintron, Marlton, N.J.; Tyche Consulting LLC, Rockville, Md.; UniTech SoftSolutions Inc. doing business as Unisofts, Ashburn, Va.; United Support Services Inc., Oceanside, Calif.; Vectrus Systems Corp., Colorado Springs, Colo.; Venesco LLC, Chantilly, Va.; Veratics Inc., Indian Harbour Beach, Fla.; Veris Group LLC, Vienna, Va.; Veteran Business Solutions LLC, Arlington, Va.; Virginia Electronic Systems Inc. doing business as Virginia Electronics, Virginia Beach, Va.; Virginia Tech Applied Research Corp. doing business as National Capital Region, Arlington, Va.; Virtual Computing Technology, Carlsbad, Calif.; Vision Engineering Solutions LLC, Orlando, Fla.; Visionary Consulting Partners LLC, Fairfax, Va.; Vista International Operations Inc., Rock Island, Ill.; Vistra Communications LLC, Tampa, Fla.; Visual Connections, LLC doing business as: VC, Chevy Chase, Md.; VOTA Consulting Corp., Coronado, Calif.; VSolvIT LLC doing business as Vsolvit, Ventura, Calif.; Wambaw Creek LLC, North Charleston, S.C.; Ward ENG Support Services Inc., Stafford, Va.; Web Courseworks Ltd. doing business as Web Courseworks, Madison, Wis.; Weems Design Studio Inc., Suwanee, Ga.; Weris Inc., Potomac Falls, Va.; WILLCOR Inc., College Park, Md.; Xenotran Corp., Linthicum Heights, Md.; Xgility LLC, Dulles, Va.; Yahya Technologies LLC doing business as Y-Tech, Brandywine, Md.; Zachary Piper Solutions LLC, McLean, Va.; Zero Point Inc., Virginia Beach, Va.; Zia Engineering & Environmental Consultants LLC, Las Cruces, N.M.; MF Lightwave Inc. doing business as Custom Cable, Tampa, Fla.; FCN Inc., Rockville, Md.; Marieke Consulting Inc., Washington, D.C.; Man-Machine Systems Assessment Inc. doing business
28
|
April 07, 2015
as MSA, El Paso, Texas; Drayton Drayton and Lamar Inc., Evans, Ga.; Federal Integrated Systems Corp. doing business as Fedsync, Alexandria, Va.; Career Management Associates of Iowa LLC, Ankeny, Iowa; Jasper Solutions Inc., Huntington Station, N.Y.; Ultimate Knowledge Corp., Rancho Santa Margarita, Calif.; Zillion Technologies Inc., Ashburn, Va.; New Wave People Inc., Princeton, N.J.; R2C LLC doing business as R2C Support Services, Huntsville, Ala.; Software Information Resource Corp. doing business as SIRC, Washington, D.C.. Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, Ariz., is being awarded a $517,300,000 cost-plus-incentive-fee and cost-plusfixed-fee contract for the Evolved Seasparrow Missile (ESSM) Block 2 engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) requirements. This contract will procure all necessary efforts to design, qualify and test ESSM Block 2 and prepare the program for a successful ‘Milestone C’ decision, currently planned in FY18. The ESSM Block 2 is an international cooperative effort to design, develop, test, and procure ESSM Block 2 missiles. ESSM Block 2 provides enhanced ship self-defense. This contract combines purchases for the Navy (40 percent) and the governments of Australia (16.51 percent), Canada (13.77 percent), Germany (6.44 percent), the Netherlands (5 percent), Denmark (4.56 percent), Norway (4.56 percent), Turkey (4.56 percent), Spain (2.5 percent), Greece (1.5 percent), and Portugal (.6 percent), as part of the NATO Seasparrow Consortium. Work will be performed in Tucson, Ariz., (67 percent); Norway (2 percent); McKinney, Texas (5 percent); Australia (3 percent); the Netherlands (3 percent); Canada (3 percent); Germany (3 percent); Turkey (2 percent); Andover, Massachusetts (2 percent); San Marco, Calif., (1 percent); San Diego, Calif., (1 percent); San Jose, Calif., (1 percent); Cincinnati, Ohio (1 percent); Canton, N.Y., (1 percent); Greece (1 percent); Denmark (1 percent); and with 3
percent in various locations that each will perform less than 1 percent of the effort, and is expected to be completed by May 2019. Fiscal 2015 research, development, test and evaluation funs and foreign Military Sales contract funds in the amount of $26,000,000 will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured. Full and open competition need not be provided for when precluded by the terms of an international agreement or a treaty between the U.S. and a foreign government or international organization, or the written directions of a foreign government reimbursing the agency for the cost of the acquisition of the supplies or services for such government. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity (N00024-15-C-5420). Seemann Composites Inc., Gulfport, Miss., is being awarded a $49,944,504 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract with one cost-plus-fixed-fee line item for the design, fabrication and testing of various structural components for naval surface and sub-surface vessels using a proprietary Resin Infusion Molding Process (SCRIMP). This contract will use an advanced composite fabrication technique to design and fabricate prototype components, support installation, perform material testing, and provide test support to the government for various marine components and structures using the SCRIMP fabrication process to support the fleet. The company will provide complete and tested prototypes and end items as deliverables via individual completion type delivery orders. Work will be performed in Gulfport, Miss., and is expected to complete by April 2020. Fiscal 2015 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $5,000,000 will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured as it is a follow-on to a Small Business Innovation Research Phase III contract. The Naval
www.npeo-kmi.com
Compiled by KMI Media Group staff
1
April
Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division, Ship System Engineering Station, Philadelphia, Pa., is the contracting activity (N65540-15-D-0015).
will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity.
General Dynamics Electric Boat Corp., Groton, Conn., is being awarded a $32,621,880 cost-plus-fixed-fee modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-13-C-4311) to provide a nuclear regional maintenance department (NRMD). Under the terms of the contract, Electric Boat will provide NRMD tasks in support of operational nuclear submarines at the Naval Submarine Support Facility, Naval Submarine Base, New London, Conn. The contract will also require project management, technical analysis, engineering and planning, training, inspection and nuclear services to accomplish intermediate-level nuclear submarine maintenance, modernization, and repairs in support of operational nuclear submarines, including maintaining and modernizing government-owned facilities and equipment and providing off-hull support of submarine maintenance. Work will be performed in New London, Conn., and is expected to be completed by March 2015. Fiscal 2015 operations and maintenance (Navy) contract funds in the amount of $29,621,880 will be obligated at time of award and
Lockheed Martin Space Systems Co., Sunnyvale, Calif., is being awarded a maximum $31,095,958 cost-plus-fixedfee, level of effort, completion contract to provide the United Kingdom (UK) with engineering and technical support services and deliverable materials for the UK Trident II Missile System. This contract provides for, but is not limited to, technical planning, direction, coordination, and control to assure that UK fleet ballistic missile program requirements are identified and integrated to support planned milestone schedules and emergent requirements, re-entry systems UK resident technical support, operational support hardware, and a Collaborative Reentry Material Experiment deliverable. Work will be performed in Sunnyvale, Calif., (79.49 percent); Cape Canaveral, Fla., (10.39 percent); Aldermaston, England (2.82 percent); St. Mary’s, Ga., (1.61 percent); Colorado Springs, Colo., (1.54 percent); 82 other U.S. cities (1.54 percent); Palo Alto, Calif., (1.42 percent); Silverdale, Wash., (0.62 percent); Coulport, Scotland (0.54 percent); and Borgo San Dalmazzo, Italy (0.26 percent), with an expected
Raytheon Co., Integrated Defense Systems, Sudbury, Mass., is being awarded a $61,978,016 modification to previously awarded contract N0002413-C-5115 to provide multiyear procurement funding for two AN/SPY-1D(V) transmitter group radar system ship sets, select missile fire control system (MFCS) MK 99 equipment, and associated engineering services. This contract modification provides fiscal 2015 funding to support Aegis Weapon System (AWS) production requirements for DDG 121 and DDG 122. The AN/SPY-1D(V) radar system and the MFCS MK99 are critical components of the AWS. Work will be performed in Andover, Mass., (80
percent); Sudbury, Mass., (15 percent); and Portsmouth, R.I. (5 percent), and is expected to be completed by June 2019. Fiscal 2015 shipbuilding and conversion (Navy) funding in the amount of $61,978,016 will be obligated at the time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity.
www.npeo-kmi.com
General Dynamics National Steel and Shipbuilding Co., San Diego, Calif., was awarded a not-to-exceed amount $61,780,484 undefinitized contract action to previously awarded cost-plus-awardfee contract N00024-13-C-4404 on
level-of-effort completion date of March 31, 2016 and deliverable items completion date of March 31, 2019. UK contract funds are being utilized in the amount of $31,095,958. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was a sole source acquisition pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2304(c) (4). The Department of the Navy, Strategic Systems Programs Office, D.C., is the contracting activity (N00030-15-C-002). Lockheed Martin, Mission Systems and Training, Baltimore, Md., is being awarded a $13,297,144 cost-plusaward-fee order against previously awarded basic ordering agreement N00024-15-G-2303 to provide engineering and management services for advance planning and design in support of the post-shakedown availability for USS Milwaukee (LCS 5). Work will be performed in Hampton, Va., (50 percent); Baltimore, Md., (45 percent); and Marinette, Wis., (5 percent), and is expected to be completed by March 2016. Fiscal 2015 shipbuilding and conversion (Navy) funding in the amount of $12,453,025 will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion, and Repair, Bath, Maine, is the contracting activity.
March 31, 2015, for USS Makin Island (LHD 8) fiscal 2015 phased maintenance availability. A phased maintenance availability includes the planning and execution of depot-level maintenance, alterations and modifications that will update and improve the ship’s military and technical capabilities. Work will be performed in San Diego, Calif., and is expected to be completed by November 2015. Fiscal 2015 operations and maintenance (Navy) and fiscal 2015 research, development, test and evaluation funding in the amount of $35,196,683 will be obligated at time of award. Fiscal 2015 operations and maintenance (Navy) funds in the amount of $25,551,329 will expire at the end of
april 07, 2015
|
29
Contract Awards the current fiscal year. The Southwest Regional Maintenance Center, San Diego, Calif., is the contracting activity. Astronics Test Systems Inc., Irvine, Calif., is being awarded a $36,402,740 firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity supply contract for the manufacture, test and delivery of radio frequency distribution and control systems (RFDACS) and system parts which is a major subsystem within the common submarine radio room installed on board all submarine classes. The RFDACS provides a means of routing signals and information between the various antenna systems and other submarine communication subsystems. Work will be performed in Irvine, Calif., and is expected to be completed by March 2020. Fiscal 2015 other procurement (Navy) funding in the amount of $949,380 will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via the Federal Business Opportunities website, with two offers received. The Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Division Newport, Newport, R.I., is the contracting activity (N66604-15-D-1083). Lockheed Martin Mission Systems & Training, Moorestown, N.J., is being awarded a $22,995,000 modification to previously awarded contract N0002411-C-5106 for Aegis Weapon System and Aegis Combat System combat systems engineering, in-country support services, and staging support to fulfill Aegis Foreign Military Sales (FMS) lifetime support requirements for the Japan Maritime Self Defense Force, the Republic of Korea Navy, and the Spanish Armada under the FMS Program. Work will be performed in Moorestown, N.J., (95.15 percent); Kumi, South Korea (1.5 percent); Chinhae, South Korea (1.4 percent); Kongsburg, Norway (0.86 percent); Tokyo, Japan (0.5 percent); Sasebo, Japan (0.23 percent); Maizuru, Japan (0.14 percent); San Fernando, Spain (0.12 percent), and Yokohama, Japan (0.1 percent), and is expected to be completed
30
|
April 07, 2015
by September 2015. FMS funding in the amount of $17,690,000 will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity. SFS Global LLC, Susanville, Calif., was awarded a $10,130,183 firm-fixedprice contract on March 31, 2015, to support Marine Corps vehicle maintenance services at Production Plant Barstow, Barstow, Calif. This contract contains options, which if exercised, will bring the contract value to $24,325,457. Work will be performed at Marine Corps Logistics Base, Barstow, Calif., and work is expected to be completed September 2015. If the options are exercised, the work will continue through June 2016. Navy working capital funds in the amount of $10,130,183 will be obligated at the time of award and the funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This was a sole-source 8(a) tribal procurement. The Marine Corps Logistics Command, Albany, Ga., is the contracting activity (M67004-15-C-0009).
Lockheed Martin Corp., Baltimore, Md., is being awarded an $8,291,108 cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order under a previously awarded contract (N0002412-G-4329) for the accomplishment of planning and support efforts for littoral combat ships (LCS) 1 and 3. The services provided will include: management services, engineering support, transition efforts to LCS planning yard, Total Ship Computing Environment work up, installation and test; materials management, shore based trainer maintenance and configuration management, Navy continuous training environment, support and maintain selected ship systems software baselines. Work will be performed in San Diego, Calif., (50 percent); and Morristown, N.J., (50 percent), and is expected to be completed by April 2016. Fiscal 2015 operations and maintenance (Navy) contract funds in the amount of $6,000,000 will be obligated at time of award and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity.
BAE Systems Information and Electronic Systems Integration Inc., Greenlawn, N.Y., is being awarded an $8,455,805 modification to a previously issued firmfixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinitequantity contract (N00019-14-D-0004) to exercise an option for the procurement of 22 AN/UPX-41 (C) digital interrogators for the Navy (14) and the government of Japan (8), and 57 Mode 5 identification friend or foe field change kits for the Navy (45) and the government of Japan (12). Work will be performed in Greenlawn, N.Y., and is expected to be completed in December 2016. No funds are being obligated at time of award. Funds will be obligated against individual delivery orders as they are issued. This modification combines purchases for the Navy ($5,808,440; 68.7 percent) and the government of Japan ($2,647,365; 31.3 percent) under the foreign military sales program. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity.
Didlake Inc., Manassas, Va., is being awarded a $7,947,400 firm-fixedprice, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for annual custodial services at Naval Air Station Oceana, Naval Weapons Station Yorktown, and Norfolk Naval Shipyard and their outlying clinics in the Hampton Roads area. The work to be performed provides for annual custodial services, but is not limited to, all management, supervision, tools, materials, supplies, labor, and transportation services necessary to perform custodial services for office space, restrooms and other types of rooms. The maximum dollar value including the base period and four option years is $40,303,053. Work will be performed in Portsmouth, Va., (41 percent); Virginia Beach, Va., (40 percent); Yorktown, Va., (18 percent); and outlying clinics in the Hampton Roads area, Va., (1 percent), and is expected to be completed by April 2020. Fiscal 2015 operation and maintenance
www.npeo-kmi.com
Compiled by KMI Media Group staff
31 MARCB
(Navy) contract funds in the amount of $7,618,481 are being obligated on this award and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract is a sole-source procurement awarded to a SourceAmerica participating nonprofit agency pursuant to the Javits-WagnerO’Day Act and the Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 8. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Mid-Atlantic,
Norfolk, Va., is the contracting activity (N40085-15-D-0063).
Textron Inc., New Orleans, La., is being awarded an $84,087,094 modification to previously awarded contract N00024-12-C-2401 to exercise an option for construction of landing craft, air cushions (LCACs) 102 and 103 and their associated technical manuals under the Ship to Shore Connector (SSC) program. The SSC Program is the functional replacement for the existing fleet of LCAC vehicles, which are nearing the end of their service life. The SSC program involves air cushion vehicles designed for a 30-year service life. The SSC mission is to land surface assault elements in support of operational maneuver from the sea, at over-thehorizon distances, while operating from amphibious ships and mobile landing platforms. SSC provides increased performance to handle current and future missions, as well as improvements which will increase craft availability and reduce total ownership cost. Work will be performed in New Orleans, La., (42 percent); Indianapolis, Ind., (20 percent); Camden, N.J., (14 percent); Norway (7 percent); Great Britain (4 percent); Livonia, Mich., (4 percent); Huntington, Calif., (2 percent); Eatontown, N.J., (2 percent); San Diego, Calif., (2 percent); Chanhassen, Minn., (1 percent); Corona, Calif., (1 percent); and Gold Beach, Ore., (1 percent), and is expected to be completed by September 2019. Fiscal 2015 shipbuilding and conversion (Navy) funding in the amount of $84,087,094 is being obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems
Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity.
www.npeo-kmi.com
Huntington Ingalls Inc., Newport News, Va., is being awarded a $7,300,000 modification to previously awarded contract N00024-08-C-2110 for onboard repair parts material procurement to support outfitting Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78). Work will be performed
Lockheed Martin Mission Systems and Training, Moorestown, N.J., is being awarded an $81,712,989 modification to previously awarded contract N00024-14-C-5114 to provide multiyear procurement funding for Aegis Weapon System (AWS) MK 7 ship sets and associated special tooling and special test equipment. The AWS represents the core of the Aegis Combat System and is comprised of the AN/SPY-1D(V) radar system with the Multi-Mission Signal Processor, Command and Decision System MK 2, Weapons Control System MK 8, Missile Fire Control System MK 99, Operational Readiness and Test System MK 9, Aegis Display System MK 2, Aegis computer programs, Aegis Combat Training System MK 50, and logistic support system. Work will be performed in Moorestown, N.J., (85.5 percent); Clearwater, Fla., (13.1 percent); and Akron, Ohio, (1.4 percent), and is expected to be completed by September 2021. Fiscal 2015 shipbuilding and conversion (Navy) funding in the amount of $81,712,989 will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity. Lockheed Martin Mission Systems and Training, Moorestown, N.J., is being awarded a $63,808,548 modification to previously awarded contract N0002409-C-5013 for Aegis Platform Systems
in Newport News, Va., and is expected to be completed by September 2015. Fiscal 2015 shipbuilding and conversion (Navy) contract funds in the amount of $7,300,000 will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion and Repair, Newport News, Va., is the contracting activity.
Engineering Agent activities and Aegis Modernization Advanced Capability Build engineering. Work will be performed in Moorestown, N.J., (99 percent); Tewksbury, Mass., (0.6 percent); and Dahlgren, Va., (0.4 percent), and is expected to be completed by September 30, 2016. Fiscal 2014 and 2015 research, development, test and evaluation; fiscal 2015 operations and maintenance (Navy), and fiscal 2014 other procurement (Navy) funding in the amount of $47,444,226 will be obligated at time of award. Contract funds in the amount of $24,245,792 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity. Lockheed Martin Space Systems Co., Sunnyvale, Calif., is being awarded a not-to-exceed $59,000,000 undefinitized contract action (N0003015-C-0015) for Trident II D-5 Navigation Subsystem Strategic Systems Program Shipboard Integration (SSI) Increment 4, Increment 8 Inertial and Increment 8 Non-Inertial efforts. Work will be performed in Mitchell Field, N.Y., (61 percent); Oldsmar, Fla., (22 percent); Huntington Beach, Calif., (11 percent); Clearwater, Fla., (5 percent); and Cambridge, Mass., (1 percent), and work is expected to be completed Dec. 31, 2016. Fiscal 2015 other procurement (Navy) funds in the approximate amount of $47,063,590 and United Kingdom funding in the approximate amount of $11,936,410 will be obligated at time of award. No contract funds will expire at the end of the fiscal year. This
april 07, 2015
|
31
Contract Awards contract was a sole-source acquisition in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2304(c) (1) & (4). The Navy’s Strategic Systems Programs, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity. V. Lopez Jr. & Sons General Engineering Contractors Inc., Santa Maria, Calif., is being awarded a maximum amount $30,000,000 indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract for painting services at government shore-based facilities in Guam. The work to be performed provides for interior and exterior painting requirements at various federal and military installations on Guam. The work includes all labor, safety controls, transportation, materials, equipment and supervision necessary to perform interior and exterior painting, surface preparation on previously painted and unpainted buildings, application of new paint, taping and spackling work, replacement of caulking and puttying, repair of flashings and sheet-metal, repair of concrete cracks and spalls, cutting and trimming of trees and shrubs (obstructing performance of work), painting of pavement markings, and incidental related work. Work on this contract will be performed in Guam, and is expected to be completed by March 2020. Fiscal 2015 operation and maintenance (Navy) contract funds in the amount of $10,000 are obligated on this award and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online website, with eight proposals received. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Marianas, Guam, is the contracting activity (N40192-15-D-2900). Raytheon Co., Integrated Defense Systems, Tewksbury, Mass., is being awarded a $26,917,593 cost-plus-fixedfee design agent contract to provide level-of-effort support for the development environment infrastructure that supports the complete development, verification and support of the CVN 78 Dual Band Radar (DBR) and support of testing to be accomplished at Wal-
32
|
April 07, 2015
lops Island Engineering Test Center Land-Based Test Site. This radar suite is a single, integrated radar system combining the AN/SPY-3 Multi-Function Radar at X-Band and AN/SPY-4 Volume Search Radar at S-Band. This radar suite is a state of the art, high-performance radar system with self-defense anti-aircraft warfare mission. The design agent contract described is intended to provide the engineering services necessary to fully mitigate numerous system integration schedule risks that are being tracked by the DBR program. This contract will provide services necessary to conduct follow on software interface development efforts to resolve software trouble reports discovered during land based and at-sea testing. This contract includes options which, if exercised, would bring the cumulative value of this contract to $50,821,247. Work will be performed in Sudbury, Mass., (86 percent); Moorestown, N.J., (9 percent); and Burlington, Mass., (5 percent), and is expected to be completed by December 2015. Fiscal 2015 shipbuilding and conversion (Navy) and fiscal 2015 research, development, test and evaluation funding in the amount of $11,602,288 will be obligated at the time of contract award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured in accordance with authority FAR 6.3021(a)(2)(iii)—only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity (N0002415-C-5335). BAE Systems Southeast Shipyards Mayport LLC, Jacksonville, Fla., is being awarded an $18,336,160 modification to a previously awarded multiship, multioption cost-plus-award-fee and costplus-incentive-fee contract (N4002410-C-4406) to provide ship repairs, hull, machinery, electrical, electronics, ship alterations and piping for USS Philippine Sea (CG 58). This modification is for the selected restricted availability of USS
Philippine Sea to include hull, machinery, electrical, electronics, ship alterations and piping alteration and repair work. The primary focus of this repair package is to accomplish structural repairs and habitability upgrades. Work will be performed in Jacksonville, Fla., and is expected to be completed by August 2015. Fiscal 2015 operations and maintenance (Navy) and fiscal 2015 other procurement (Navy) contract funds in the amount of $18,336,160 will be obligated at time of award and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Southeast Regional Maintenance Center, Jacksonville, Fla., is the contracting activity. GFP-Yates, a joint venture, Universal City, Texas, is being awarded $15,693,100 for firm-fixed-price task order 0002 under a previously awarded multiple award construction contract (N69450-13-D-1763) for renovation and repairs of Building 1, Chief of Naval Air Training Headquarters at Naval Air Station Corpus Christi, Texas. The work to be performed provides for renovation of an existing 1940s multi-story, wood frame structure. The project will demolish one wing; the remaining three wings require extensive renovation, including upgrades to the exterior envelope and structure, a full interior renovation with reconfiguration of spaces, and replacement of all building mechanical, electrical and fire protection systems. Support projects include related utilities infrastructure and civil site improvements. Work will be performed in Corpus Christi, Texas, and is expected to be completed by May 2017. Fiscal 2015 operation and maintenance (Navy) contract funds in the amount of $15,693,100 are being obligated on this award and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Three proposals were received for this task order. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southeast, Jacksonville, Fla., is the contracting activity. Sundt Construction Inc., Tempe, Ariz., is being awarded $13,449,500 for firm-fixed-price task order 0003 under a
www.npeo-kmi.com
Compiled by KMI Media Group staff
previously awarded multiple award construction contract (N62473-10-D-5408) to design and construct a new engine dynamometer facility at Marine Corps Logistics Base Barstow, Calif. The new high-bay single-story facility will house engine dynamometers to be supplied by the government, as well as ancillary equipment and systems to support the dynamometer test process. The facility shall be designed with acoustical mitigation measures to protect the safety of the workers and those in the immediate vicinity of the facility. The task order also contains an option item and a planned modification, which if exercised would increase cumulative task order value to $13,949,500. The work will be performed in Barstow, California, and is expected to be completed by October 2016. Fiscal 2015 military construction (Navy) contract funds in the amount of $13,449,500 are being obligated on this award and will not expire at the end of current fiscal year. Seven proposals were received for this task order. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, San Diego, Calif., is the contracting activity. Lockheed Martin Mission Systems and Training, Moorestown, N.J., is being awarded an $11,705,637 not-to-exceed modification to previously awarded firmfixed-price contract (N00024-14-C-5114) for the procurement of Aegis Ashore Removable Equipment Units (REUs), accomplishment of the required physical modifications to the Production Test Center (PTC) to accommodate the installation of REUs and skid accessories, as well as planning efforts in advance of systemlevel testing for the Aegis Ashore Missile Defense System (AAMDS) Host Nation #2 equipment set. The AAMDS is comprised of a land-based version of the Aegis weapon system, which serves as the core of the AAMDS. Work will be performed in Moorestown, N.J., and is expected to be completed by August 2017. Fiscal 2015 Defense-wide procurement funding in the amount of $3,334,745 will be obligated at the time of award and will not expire
www.npeo-kmi.com
at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity. MECTS Services Joint Venture, New Town, N.D., is being awarded a $10,932,036 modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-fixed-fee contract (N68335-13-C-0292) for additional logistic services and spare/repair parts in support of the Persistent Ground Surveillance System. Work will be performed in Fairfax, Va., (59 percent); Afghanistan (24 percent); Yuma, Ariz., (7 percent); China Lake, Calif., (5 percent); and Point Mugu, Calif., (5 percent), and is expected to be completed in September 2015. Fiscal 2015 operations and maintenance (Army) funds in the amount of $1,150,000 are being obligated on this award, all of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Lakehurst, N.J., is the contracting activity. Electronic Metrology Laboratory LLC, Franklin, Tenn., is being awarded a $9,757,376 modification under a previously awarded firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract to exercise option one for base operations support services at Naval Air Station Whiting Field and outlying fields. The work to be performed provides for all management, supervision, labor, equipment, materials, supplies and tools necessary to perform facilities management, facilities investment, facility maintenance services (non-family housing), pest control, utility plant and distribution system operations and maintenance (chiller, electrical, gas, wastewater, steam and water), managed safety services, and base support vehicles and equipment. The total contract amount after exercise of this option will be $19,460,652. Work will be performed in Milton, Fla., (80 percent); and Outlying Fields (20 percent), and is expected to be completed by March 2016. Fiscal 2015 operation and maintenance (Navy); fiscal 2015 Navy working capital funds; fiscal 2015 Navy family housing, and fiscal 2015 Defense
health program funds contract funds in the amount of $7,755,360 are being obligated on this award and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southeast, Jacksonville, Fla., is the contracting activity (N69450-14-D-8000). Leebcor Services LLC, Williamsburg, Va., is being awarded $8,188,374 for firm-fixed-price task order 0003 under a previously awarded multiple award construction contract (N69450-14-D-1277) for the repair of the Trident Refit Facility Refit Wharf 2 located at Naval Submarine Base, Kings Bay, Ga. The work to be performed provides for repairs that include basic concrete restoration of concrete piles, pile caps, edge beams and mooring foundation and hardware. Cathodic protection will be built into the concrete structure to maintain the integrity of the repair. Ladders will be replaced and a catwalk will be repaired. Fender pile sacrificial anodes, fender wraps and bonding systems will be repaired. Work will be performed in Kings Bay, Ga., and is expected to be completed by August 2016. Fiscal 2015 operation and maintenance (Navy) contract funds in the amount of $8,188,374 are being obligated on this award and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Three proposals were received for this task order. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southeast, Jacksonville, Fla., is the contracting activity. Raytheon Co., Integrated Defense Systems, Tewksbury, Mass., is being awarded a $7,800,000 modification to previously awarded contract N0002410-C-5126 to purchase DDG 1000 provisional item orders spares. Work will be performed in Portsmouth, R.I., and is expected to be completed by September 2016. Fiscal 2014 shipbuilding and conversion (Navy) funding in the amount of $7,800,000 will be obligated at the time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity.
april 07, 2015
|
33
Contract Awards
30 MARCB
Whiting Turner Contracting Co., Inc., Baltimore, Md., is being awarded a $38,490,000 firm-fixed-price contract for mechanical and electrical system improvements and repairs at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. Work will be performed in Bethesda, Md., and is expected to be completed by February 2017. Fiscal 2014 military construction (Defense) contract funds in the amount of $38,490,000 are being obligated on this award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online website, with three proposals received. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity (N40080-15-C-0156). Piedmont Natural Gas Co. Inc., Charlotte, N.C., is being awarded a $27,543,774 firm-fixed-price contract for construction efforts to implement a steam decentralization utility energy services project at Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune. The work to be performed provides for installation of new energy efficient space and domestic water-heating systems, and the removal of existing steam equipment and distribution infrastructure at Hadnot Point and French Creek, Courthouse Bay, and Marine Corps Air Station New River. This implementation will allow the U.S. government to effectively improve the efficiency, maintenance and reliability of systems located in the aforementioned facilities and reduce its energy consumption resulting in utility cost avoidance and compliance with mandatory laws and statutes to reduce energy consumption. Work will be performed in Jacksonville, N.C., and is expected to be completed by April 2017. The exact amount of the contract will be determined by financing at the time of award, but is estimated to be approximately $37,898,833. No funds will be obligated with this award. The contract was procured under the authority of Title 10 U.S. Code Section 2304(c)(5), statute expressly authorizes or requires that the acquisition be
34
|
April 07, 2015
made through another agency or from a specific source, as implemented by Federal Acquisition Regulation 6.302-5. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 authorizes agencies to use appropriations, private financing, or a combination to comply with its requirements for utility energy service contracts for evaluations and project implementation. For this project, the Marine Corps has agreed to pay for the costs of services and construction from project financing which will be obtained by Piedmont Natural Gas Company Inc. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Mid-Atlantic, Norfolk, Va., is the contracting activity (N40085-15-C-7701). Marvin Engineering Co., Inc., Inglewood, Calif., is being awarded $24,990,472 for firm-fixed-price delivery order 0013 against a previously issued basic ordering agreement (N0001911-G-0009) for the procurement of 648 LAU-127 guided missile launchers for the Navy (608), and the government of Australia (40), to enable the F/A-18 aircraft to carry and launch AIM-120 and AIM-9X missiles. Work will be performed in Inglewood, Calif., and is expected to be completed in October 2018. Fiscal 2013 aircraft procurement (Navy) funds and foreign military sales funds in the amount of $24,990,472 will be obligated at time of award, of which $23,436,232 will expire at the end of the fiscal year. This modification combines purchase for the Navy ($23,436,232; 93.8 percent) and the government of Australia ($1,554,240; 6.2 percent). The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity. The Boeing Co., Seattle, Wash., is being awarded a $21,065,841 modification to a previously awarded cost reimbursement type contract (N0001904-C-3146) for system development and testing to resolve open trouble reports on the existing P-8A Poseidon Test aircraft. Work will be performed in Huntington Beach, Calif., (51 percent); Seattle, Wash. (47 percent); and Patuxent River, Md., (2
percent), and is expected to be completed in March 2017. Fiscal 2015 research, development, test and evaluation (Navy) funds in the amount of $19,970,000 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity. Logos Technologies Inc., Fairfax, Va., is being awarded an $18,615,621 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to provide operations, maintenance, and logistics services in support of Kestrel Wide Area Surveillance systems and sensors deployed on Persistent Ground Surveillance Systems and Persistent Threat Detection Systems aerostats in support of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Resolute Support mission for the Army. Work will be performed in Fairfax, Va., (55 percent); Afghanistan (30 percent); Yuma, Ariz., (5 percent); Raleigh, N.C., (5 percent); and Pt. Mugu, Calif., (5 percent), and is expected to be completed in December 2015. Fiscal 2015 operations and maintenance (Army) funds in the amount of $3,240,741 are being obligated at time of award, all of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1). The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Lakehurst, N.J., is the contracting activity (N68335-15-C-0144). Northrop Grumman Systems Corp., Linthicum Heights, Md., is being awarded $15,292,388 for modification P00149 under a previously awarded cost-plusfixed-fee contract (M67854-07-C-2072) in support of Ground/Air Task-Oriented Radar (G/ATOR) program managed by Program Executive Officer Land Systems, Quantico, Va. This modification incorporates a change order to implement Phase II of the computer program reliability improvement plan within the framework of the low rate initial production contract. Work will be performed in Linthicum Heights, Md., (82 percent); and Syracuse, N.Y., (18 percent), and
www.npeo-kmi.com
Compiled by KMI Media Group staff
is expected to be completed by Dec. 31, 2016. Research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $4,410,000 will be obligated at the time of award. No contracts funds will expire the end of the current fiscal year. This modification is awarded against a sole-source contract in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1). The Marine Corps Systems Command, Quantico, Va., is the contracting activity. BAE Systems Technology Solutions & Services Inc., Rockville, Md., is being awarded a $14,709,312 cost-plusfixed-fee contract for program and project management and systems logistics and engineering support of the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division’s air traffic control and landing system. These efforts will include system certification; technical assistance; systems test, evaluation and analysis; software and hardware development, installation and maintenance; test data acquisition, reduction and analysis; configuration management; training support; equipment manufacturing, refurbishing, overhaul, and repair; and quality control. Work will be performed in St. Inigoes, Md., (49 percent); Patuxent River, Md., (49 percent); Norfolk, Va., (1 percent); and San Diego, Calif., (1 percent), and is expected to be completed in March 2016. Fiscal 2015 Navy working capital funds in the amount of $1,250,000 are being obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to FAR 6.302-1. The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity (N0042115-C-0012). Joint Venture of Casco Bay Engineering-CLD Consulting Engineers LLC, Portland, Maine, is being awarded a maximum amount $10,000,000 firmfixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinitequantity, architect-engineering contract for design and engineering services in support of utility and infrastructure projects
www.npeo-kmi.com
primarily in the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Mid-Atlantic Public Works Department (PWD) Maine area of responsibility (AOR). Task order 0001 is being awarded at $728,011 for design of multiple utility system replacement and upgrade projects at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Kittery, Maine. Work for this task order is expected to be completed by November 2015. All work on this contract will be performed within the NAVFAC Mid-Atlantic PWD Maine AOR which includes Maine (70 percent); New Hampshire (5 percent); Vermont (5 percent); Massachusetts (5 percent); Connecticut (5 percent); New York (5 percent); Rhode Island (4 percent) and in the remainder of the U.S. (1 percent). The term of the contract is not to exceed 60 months with an expected completion date of March 2020. Fiscal 2015 Navy working capital funds contract funds in the amount of $728,011 are being obligated on this award and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online website, with eight proposals received. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Mid-Atlantic, Norfolk, Va., is the contracting activity (N40085-15-D-6102). L-3 Communication Integrated Systems LP, Waco, Texas, is being awarded an $8,180,126 firm-fixed-price contract for the procurement of three production installation kits (A-kits), one spare A-kit required for the installation of the upgraded auxiliary power unit in the E-6B aircraft, and the installation technical data package for the A-kit. Work will be performed in Waco, Texas, and is expected to be completed in March 2016. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to FAR.6.302-1. Fiscal 2014 and 2015 aircraft procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $8,180,126 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity (N00019-15-C-0093).
Rockwell Collins Inc., Cedar Rapids, Iowa, is being awarded a $7,824,175 modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N0001913-C-0004) to upgrade the configuration and operational properties of the EA-6B Block I aircraft’s nuclear planning and execution system. Work will be performed in Richardson, Texas, and is expected to be completed in September 2016. Fiscal 2014 aircraft procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $7,824,175 are being obligated on this award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity. Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded a $6,808,493 modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-fixed-fee contract (N0001915-C-0031) to provide interim contractor sustainment services in support of the F-35 Lightening II low rate initial production lot aircraft for the Air Force. Work will be performed at Luke Air Force Base, Glendale, Ariz., and is expected to be completed in November 2015. Fiscal 2014 aircraft procurement (Air Force) funding in the amount of $6,808,493 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity. Bell Helicopter Textron Inc., Fort Worth, Texas, has been awarded a maximum $7,098,324 firm-fixed-price contract for gearbox assembly spare parts in support of the H-1 helicopter. This contract was a sole-source. This is a 54-base contract with no option periods. Location of performance is Texas with a September 30, 2019, performance completion date. Using military service is Navy. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2015 Navy working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Aviation, Philadelphia, Pa. (W58RGZ12G0001-THGQ).
april 07, 2015
|
35
Defense Innovations Leading-edge technologies and innovations from around the world. Navy Air/Sea looks at what the industrial complex—both friendly and threat—are developing.
Aerial Recovery of Small and Micro Air Vehicles
Brigham Young University Country of origin: United States Language: English Due to recent directives from the Department of Defense, there is great pressure to develop the technology behind unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). UAVs are remotely piloted or autonomous aircraft that can carry cameras, sensors, communications equipment or other payloads. UAVs have proven their usefulness in military applications in recent years. Large UAVs have become an integral part of the U.S. arsenal. Large UAVs have executed surveillance and tactical missions in virtually every part of the world. For example, unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) have become an essential tool for warfighters. While high-altitude, longendurance UAS like the Predator and Global Hawk provide persistent intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities, they are a scarce resource that cannot be given specific data-gathering tasks by individual troops. At the other end of the spectrum are backpackable small and micro air vehicles (MAVs), with wingspans less than 48 inches, which theoretically can be carried by every warfighter. One drawback of MAVs is the recovery of the MAV after it has completed its mission. Although the relatively low cost of MAVs may suggest that they may be expendable (and thereby removing the need for recovery), MAVs still contain critical and often classified technology that needs to be kept out of enemy hands. Thus, innovative recovery techniques are critical to ubiquitous use of MAV technology. This concept relates generally to unmanned aerial vehicles, and more specifically, to the aerial recovery of small and micro unmanned aerial vehicles. 4 drawings
36
|
April 07, 2015
Flight of Warplane Group Petrenko L.P. Country of Origin: Ukraine Language: Russian This invention relates to aircraft engineering. Proposed method comprises takeoff and flight of the main warplane and takeoff of the plane with computer control and fire set. Said main warplane tail is equipped with the first pawl for transmission there through the info messages and second pawl to replenish smaller computer-control plane with hydrocarbons. After takeoff of the main warplane, first pawl is turned and after approach of smaller plane it is pre-coupled with said main warplane to make the info communication channel. Thereafter, second pawl is turned at second main warplane to connect it with the second receiver pawl of second pawl of smaller plane. In the combat area, data is transmitted via data communication channel to smaller plane computer system to uncouple smaller plane from the main warplane. 4 drawings
Detecting Weather Conditions Including Fog Using Vehicle Onboard Sensors
Google Inc. Country of origin: United States Language: English Autonomous vehicles use various computing systems to aid in the transport of passengers from one location to another. Some autonomous vehicles may require an initial input or continuous input from an operator, such as a pilot, driver or passenger. Other autonomous systems, for example autopilot systems, may be used when the system has been engaged, which permits the operator to switch from a manual mode (where the operator exercises a high degree of control over the movement of the vehicle) to an autonomous mode (where the vehicle essentially drives itself) to modes that lie somewhere in between. Such vehicles are typically equipped with various types of sensors in order to detect objects in the surroundings. For example, an autonomous vehicle may include lasers, sonar, radar, cameras and other devices which scan and record data from surroundings of the vehicle. Sensor data from one or more of these devices may be used to detect objects and their respective characteristics (position, shape, heading, speed, etc.). This detection and identification is useful for the safe operation of autonomous vehicle. This design describes methods and systems for detecting weather conditions including fog using vehicle onboard sensors are provided. An example method includes receiving laser data collected from scans of an environment of a vehicle, and associating, by a computing device, laser data points of with one or more objects in the environment. The
www.npeo-kmi.com
Compiled by KMI Media Group staff
method also includes comparing laser data points that are unassociated with the one or more objects in the environment with stored laser data points representative of a pattern due to fog, and based on the comparison, identifying by the computing device an indication that a weather condition of the environment of the vehicle includes fog. 8 drawings
the opposite end of which is located in the sub-cap container volume. The reported benefit is the creation of conditions for reliable underwater missile takeoff from TLC by eliminating hydraulic, oscillating and vibrating effects on the missile housing.
Launching Facility OAO Zavod im. V.A. Degtjareva Country of origin: Russia Language: Russian This concept describes the launching facility for anti-aircraft missiles including base, rack and frame with guides. The guides have a possibility of independent guidance from each other as to an angle of elevation (meaning each launcher tube can be elevated separately). Installed on the guides are remotely controlled devices of depression of a limit stop retaining the missile. The guides are charged with target-missiles in launching containers. Missiles are electrically connected to connectors of the launching facility. According to the designers, the effect of this concept is to enlarge the technical capabilities of the launching facility and improving quality. 2 drawings
Underwater Missile Takeoff VPK NPO mashinostroenija Country of origin: Russia Language: Russian This design describes a method of missile takeoff from the transporter-launcher containers (TLC) consists in inflation with the gas which does not support combustion of sub-cap volume of TLC with simultaneous ingress of gas through the obturator in the bottom volume, after which the inflation is switched off when achievement of the desired pressure in the sub-cap container volume, followed by inflation of the bottom volume of the container with gases from powder pressure accumulator (PPA). The device for implementation of missile takeoff from the TLC comprises an obturator, a PPA, a high-pressure cylinder with an on-off valve connected to the sub-cap container volume by the pipeline, a pressure indicator unit with the pipeline,
www.npeo-kmi.com
Small Arms Kontsern Kalashnikov Country of origin: Russia Language: Russian Small arms have a barrel, a barrel receiver, a cover plate with a back plate and a Picatinny rail, a bolt carrier with a bolt, a trigger and firing mechanism, a retracting mechanism, and a gas fitting with a gas tube and a piston. The Picatinny rail is installed on the cover plate of the barrel receiver. The front shoe and the rear shoe, in which the gas fitting is located, are installed on the barrel. In the upper part of the shoes there are shaped projections of a dovetail type for interaction with the Picatinny rail. The cover plate of the barrel receiver includes a bracket, to which a fastener to be fixed to the barrel receiver is installed. The Picatinny rail is provided with a longitudinal slot located in the central part of the rail. The retracting mechanism is fixed in the rear part of the cover plate of the barrel receiver. A gas tube fastener is installed in the shoe. According to the designers, the effect of this concept is to improve reliability of attachment of a cover plate to a barrel receiver and enlarging functional capabilities of small arms. 6 drawings
Aircraft Sighting System for Close Air Combat
Efanov Vasilij Vasil’evich Country of origin: Russia Language: Russian This invention relates to means of sighting at the planes. The invention comprises an onboard radar station, a signal processor, a display, and a communication unit with the missiles, an attack mode switch, the sensors of flight altitude and aircraft bank, the switch of displacement of field of view, a processor of sighting control, a unit of indication of target on the angular position and a unit of indication of target on the angular velocity. The unit of indication of target on the angular position of the target comprises n threshold devices, a
april 07, 2015
|
37
Defense Innovations setpoint device of signals, the OR element, the subtractor, the first and second diodes. And the first and second inputs of the unit of indication of target are respectively the first inputs of n threshold devices and the second input of the subtractor. The outputs of the first and second diodes and the subtractor are respectively the first, second and third outputs of the unit of indication of target on the angular position of the target. The unit of indication of target on the angular velocity of the target movement comprises the first NOT element, a shift register, a generator of signals, n AND elements, n second NOT elements, n counters, a subtractor, the first and second diodes. And the first, second and third inputs of the unit of indication of target on the angular velocity of the target movement is the input of the first NOT element and the first inputs of the first and second keys. The outputs of the first, second devices and subtractor are respectively the first, second and third output of the unit of indication of target. The reported benefit is reducing the time of sighting.
particularly to a system and method for assisting in unlocking the fin lock mechanism. 3 drawings
Rolling Cruise Missile Pavlov Viktor Andreevich Country of origin: Russia Language: Russian This design describes a two-stage rolling cruise missile (CM) with five degrees of freedom of spatial movement includes a housing stabilized as to the sixth degree of freedom by rotation in the form of a rotation figure with wings, rudders and an active aerodynamic nozzle, a single-duct control system, a steering gear, a detachable launching accelerator with an axial turbo-jet engine with a gas-dynamic nozzle, a cruise stage with an n duct system of formation of lift capacity in a rotation mode and a small-size disposable turbo-jet engine with a folded air intake, and a self-guidance head. The reported benefit is a simpler control and stabilization of a cruise missile, lower weight and dimensions of the cruise missile. 2 drawings
Fin Buzz System and Method for Assisting in Unlocking a Missile Fin Lock Mechanism
Raytheon Company Country of origin: United States Language English A typical missile includes pairs of controllable steering fins disposed on opposite sides of a missile fuselage. The fins are rotatable to provide yaw, pitch, and roll control during missile flight. The fins are coupled to rotatable shafts that extend into the fuselage and engage corresponding control systems, generally through motors and associated gear linkages that control the rotation of the fins. Accurate flight of the missile depends on the proper function of the steering fins, and it is desirable to avoid damage to the control systems when the missile is carried external to an aircraft or during handling prior to mounting on the aircraft. Locking the steering fins in place when the missile is not in use prevents control fin rotation and reduces the possibility of damage and wear on the steering fins and related fin control systems. At the same time, the steering fins must be quickly and reliably released so that they can perform their steering function when the missile is launched. The invention relates to a mechanism for locking in place the steering fins of a missile, particularly when the missile is not in use, and more
38
|
April 07, 2015
Procedure for Decreasing Pilot Landing Vertical Speed After Ejection
NPP Zvezda Country of origin: Russia Language: Russian This proposed procedure consists in application of powder engine. Note here that said engine is actuated by electric signal from transducer subject to altitude, pilot weight and pilot parachute landing vertical speed. Proposed system is arranged with catapult seat bottom surface. It consists of four-nozzle powder engine with minimum possible operating time and optimum direction of thrust and altitude-and-vertical speed transducer direction, transducer outputting engine actuation instruction subject to current altitude, pilot weight and pilot parachute landing vertical speed. Pilot weight data is received by said transducer from seat ACS at ejection.
www.npeo-kmi.com
Compiled by KMI Media Group staff
According to the designers, the effect of this concept is to decrease speed after ejection. 2 drawings
Ship Electric Power Plant GOUVPO SPbGU ITMO Country of origin: Russia Language: Russian A ship’s electric power plant includes main motor connected to main generator, additional motor connected to additional generator, propulsion motor connected to propeller screw, main buses, power buses of electric loads at the ship, plant control system, automatic switches, current and voltage sensors, regulated reversible frequency converter, input circuit of frequency converter, converter choke, power input of regulated rectifier, data outputs of the sensors, rectifier controller, capacitance accumulator of direct current circuit, direct voltage sensor, local control unit, plant control system, additional frequency converter, first and second frequency converters, additional choke and filter, first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth automatic switches, input and output phase voltage, propulsion motor, inverter controller. According to the designers, the effect of this concept is to reduce plant dimensions and weight, enhanced efficiency and electric power quality, improved reliability without the use of transformer as galvanic isolation. 1 drawing
Event Detection System User Interface System Coupled to Multiple Sensors Secretary of the U.S. Navy Country of origin: United States Language: English Current structures such as armor, microelectronics, or critical infrastructure systems lack effective, real-time sensing systems to detect damage events of interest, such as an impact from a ballistic object, a tamper event, a physical impact such as from debris (such as airborne or space debris), or other damage events which may affect structural integrity or cause failure. Detection of armor or surface failures may be currently based on aural indications or manual inspection after an event which could be delayed due to ongoing use of equipment or operations. When a critical armor or surface element becomes compromised, lives may be placed at risk. Currently, there is no known way of effectively detecting these failures immediately or as the event happens. This concept describes a damage detection and remediation system includes a sensing device for detecting damage events related to a structure of interest. Such damage events may include impact from a ballistic object, a tamper event, a physical impact, or other events that may affect structural integrity or cause failure. Illustratively, the sensing device is in communication with a measurement system to determine damage criteria, and a processing system which is configured to use the damage criteria to determine, for example, a direction of the initiation point of a ballistic causing the damage event. 25 drawings
Integrated Propulsion and Attitude Control System from a Common Pressure Vessel for an Interceptor Raytheon Company Country of origin: United States Language: English Interceptors such as self-propelled rockets, missiles or counter-missile missiles may be launched from air-, land- or sea-based platforms to engage a target. The interceptor may be used offensively against other platforms, fixed emplacements or other targets or defensively to
www.npeo-kmi.com
april 07, 2015
|
39
Defense Innovations intercept and destroy enemy missiles. The interceptor may use explosive or kinetic energy to defeat the target. The interceptor is propelled by a rocket motor. Rocket propellant is ignited and burns creating a high-pressure gas. This gas is expelled in a generally axial direction through one or more main nozzles that convert the high-pressure gas into a high-velocity gas. The interceptor is maneuvered by an attitude control system (ACS). In general, the ACS produces a “moment” offset from the center of gravity of the interceptor that interacts with the main axial thrust vector to change the attitude of the interceptor. This moment may provide yaw, pitch and/or roll control. One approach known as “thrust vector control” uses a servo motor to physically reorient the one or more main nozzles to produce the desired moment. Another approach known as “aerodynamic control” uses servo motor to physically deploy one or more aerodynamic control surfaces such as fins. Some interceptors use a combination of thrust vector control at low speed with aerodynamic control at high speed. Another approach is to selectively ignite one or more explosive guidance units placed on the airframe to generate impulse moments to control the attitude. In any of these approaches, a flight control system responds to guidance commands to command the ACS to maneuver the interceptor. Guidance may be provided as a command line-of-sight in which a targeting system tracks the target and the interceptor, calculates the appropriate guidance commands that will result in an intercept and send these commands to the interceptor to execute, a “beamrider” in which an IR sensor mounted aft of the interceptor “rides” an IR beam from the platform to the target, or a Homing Guidance (active, semi-active or passive) in which a sensor mounted forward of the interceptor locks onto the target. 8 drawings
Automated Underwater Image Restoration via Denoised Deconvolution
US Navy Country of origin: United States Language: English The quality of images taken underwater is vital to many military and civilian applications involving mine detection, diver visibility, and search and rescue. The ability to obtain better images at greater distances has often been a central goal of underwater imaging projects. Unlike in the atmosphere, where visibility can be on the order of miles, the visual range in the underwater environment is rather limited, at best on the order of tens of meters, even in the clearest waters. This is the result of the combined attenuation effects from both absorption, i.e., photons being absorbed into water molecules, phytoplankton cells, and detritus, and scattering, i.e., photons being bounced away from the original path into different traveling directions. It is mostly the effects of scattering by
40
|
April 07, 2015
water and particulates that make the water look dirty or less transparent, resulting in a blurred image seen by human eyes and recorded by cameras. Image quality representation is an interesting and important research subject in digital image processing, especially with the rapid expansion of digital cameras, scanners, and printers into the everyday life of most households in recent years. Such devices would be of little use if they did not provide an acceptable representation of the subject of the image that was suitable for its intended purposes. The ability to objectively differentiate qualities amongst different images is critical in digital image processing, both for post-processing restoration of degraded imageries and in real-time imaging enhancement. This concept includes a computer-implemented method for automatically retrieving information regarding optical properties of a scattering medium including receiving a first digital image and a first image quality value associated with the first digital image and sharpness of an edge of the first digital image, producing an optimized image, transforming the optimized image into an optimized optical transfer function, receiving a second digital image and a second image quality value associated with the second digital image and sharpness of an edge of the second digital image, identifying either the first or second digital image as an optimized digital image, and transforming the optimized optical transfer function into an optimized value of the optical parameter. 7 drawings
Aeroheating of Sensor Protected by Integrating Device Seeker
Sener Grupo De Ingenieria, S.A Country of origin: Spain Language: English Nowadays most missile systems use imaging electro-optical (EO) sensors to acquire and track targets, usually in combination with other sensors means such as laser and radio frequency (RF) seekers. These missiles can be widely classified into categories: (a) Tactical missiles, (b) High-altitude endo-atmospheric missile defense interceptors, and (c) Space missile defense interceptors. This invention relates to the protection of a missile electro-optical (EO) seeker assembly, i.e. an EO sensor, from damage caused by an external high-speed air stream laden with dispersed multi-phase particles due to (a) aero-heating by the hot gas of the oncoming stream invading
www.npeo-kmi.com
Compiled by KMI Media Group staff
the sensor cavity, with consequent severe degradation of the image due to differential thermal expansion of the telescope structures, and (b) erosion of the optical coatings by the abrasive particles suspended in the high speed oncoming air as it occurs in certain geographical regions of the planet. 16 drawings
This design describes systems and methods to determine and ascertain the occurrence of an event are provided. The event can manifest its presence through transient signatures that alter short or long term background sensor registered signals. The system can include multiple sensors, one or more data recorders and data reporting devices. Event data from each sensor is collected, recorded and reported. Data from the various sensors is correlated to triangulate or otherwise localize the occurrence of an event. The sensors can be incorporated on a single device or can be a distributed set of independent sensors on separate devices that share their information with the data collection system. 5 drawings
Multi-Sensor Event Detection System US Navy Country of origin: United States Language: English Currently, a number of event detection methods rely on human observation. As an illustrative example, current minesweeping systems are towed by a manned platform, such as a helicopter or surface ship. Since there is some level of human situational awareness, direct observation is used to recognize if the sweep system being employed has indeed swept a mine or not. Accordingly, tactical memorandums and concept of operation documents for these systems explicitly state that those manning the platform shall watch for a plume or explosion when sweeping or neutralizing mines. The fundamental concept of mine hunting and sweeping is shifting from this perspective to an entirely unmanned operation. Larger countermeasure ships and helicopters are slated to be retired in favor of smaller unmanned systems. For mine hunting systems, detailed methods of data collection and post mission analysis (PMA) are prescribed. A human operator downloads and reviews every sonar image or other data that the system collects. For mine sweeping, however, PMA has been neglected due to the use of manned platforms and human observations, as described previously. Current unmanned sweep systems record when the system is energized and where it is. However, there are no provisions for recording whether or not a mine firing has occurred. Further, if a mine firing has occurred, there are no provisions for recording where the mine firing occurred. Accordingly, the judgment as to whether an area has been cleared of naval sea mines to an acceptable level has to rely on vague position and status data. Such vague data is inadequate for deciding whether to risk lives and assets in moving them through an area that may or may not be sufficiently cleared. Thus, if an unmanned sweeping capability is desired, there is a need for a multi-sensor data collection system that can detect, localize, and report mine firings that have been actuated by an unmanned sweep system.
www.npeo-kmi.com
Automatic Cargo Hook Release Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. Country of origin: United States Language: English A utility VTOL aircraft’s ability to carry cargo externally is one of its most important features. Such a utility VTOL aircraft is typically equipped to externally carry any large, long or oddly shaped cargo provided that the cargo is within the lifting capacity of the VTOL aircraft. A significant advantage associated with a lifting capability of the VTOL aircraft is that a cargo may be picked up from or delivered to locations where access by other forms of transportation is difficult or impossible. Additionally, the attached suspension systems do not require the VTOL aircraft to land in order to deliver or pick up the cargo. Typically, a VTOL aircraft carries external cargo either with a singlepoint or a multipoint suspension system. A VTOL aircraft may have three external cargo attachment hooks (suspension points) displaced longitudinally on the bottom of the aircraft to carry external cargo—one on the center line forward of the aircraft center of gravity (forward hook), one on the center line substantially at the center of the aircraft’s center of gravity (center hook), and one on the center line aft of the center of gravity (aft hook). In a single-point suspension system, external cargo may be independently attached to any attachment hook with up to three independently attached cargo loads carried by each attachment hook. However, in the case of a multipoint suspension system, typically, the forward hook is attached to the front of the cargo and the aft hook is attached to the rear of the cargo in a ‘Y’ shaped arrangement. This arrangement stabilizes the cargo about the yaw axis, thereby significantly reducing the cargo's ability to swing nose left or nose right. In some VTOL aircraft, the suspension system may not be capable of automatically releasing a cargo connected to a cargo hook. Improvements in providing an automatic cargo hook interface that attaches to an existing
april 07, 2015
|
41
Defense Innovations cargo hook release system of a VTOL aircraft and controlled by a flight control computer would be well received in the art. The subject matter disclosed in this relates generally to the field of load-management systems in a vertical take-off and landing aircraft, and more particularly, to an automatic cargo release harness assembly that interconnects to an existing cargo hook release system of a manned, unmanned, or piloted VTOL aircraft for a precision release of one or more loads coupled to the cargo hook release system. 2 drawings
can be applied on the lower side of the ice sheet and drill through this, when the submarine is located directly below the ice sheet. For creating an exit hole in an ice sheet, the drill is usefully dimensioned such that it can create a drill hole whose cross-section or diameter renders it possible for a person to climb through here. Preferably, the drill comprises a drilling head whose diameter corresponds at least to the diameter of an exit opening arranged on the submarine on the upper deck side, or is larger. The drilling head can be similar to the drilling heads used in tunnel advancing machines, and at an essentially plane face side, apart from a centering tip arranged in its center, can comprise a multitude of cutters. Apart from this, drilling heads having a conical tip and which comprise several cutters running from the center of the drilling head to its outer periphery can also be provided. 3 drawings
Submarine ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems GmbH Country of origin: Germany Language: English Submarines having a drive which is independent of external air can operate in Arctic waters over a longer period of time below a closed ice sheet. However, with submerged travel below a closed ice sheet, those emergency situations which render it necessary for the crew to leave the submarine have been found to be fatal. In such a situation, the ice sheet or ice layer prevents these persons from getting to above the ice sheet. Against this background, it is the object of the invention to provide a submarine, which renders it possible for the occupants to exit out of the submarine to above the ice sheet, given submerged travel below a closed ice sheet. This object is achieved by a submarine having a drilling device which is directed upwards and which is arranged in a pressure hull of the submarine. The drilling device comprises a drill which is extendable out of an opening of the pressure hull arranged on the upper deck side, wherein a drilling head of the drill forms a closure body which closes the opening of the pressure hull. Advantageous further developments of this submarine are to be deduced from the dependent claims, the subsequent description as well as the drawing. Hereby, according to the invention, the features specified in the dependent claims in each case per se but also in a suitable combination can further form the solution according to the invention. The basic concept of the invention is to equip the submarine with a drilling device which is directed upwards. With such a drilling device, with submerged travel below a closed ice sheet, it is possible to drill a hole into this from below and particularly advantageously an exit hole for the crew of the submarine. The occupants can leave the submarine through this exit hole, for example in the case of an emergency, and get on top of the ice sheet. For this, the drilling device is positioned on or in the submarine, such that a drill arranged outside the submarine body
42
|
April 07, 2015
Aerial Observation System Shilat Optronics Ltd Country of origin: Israel Language: English An aerial platform comprising a kite providing a level of directional stability when elevated by the wind, and an inflated balloon attached above the kite with a cord. The payload is attached to the kite. The physical separation of the balloon from the kite isolates the payload from shocks generated by the balloon. Additional isolation is provided by use of an elastic attachment cord. Electric power is supplied to the aerial platform by means of an optical fiber receiving optical power from a ground-based source, and conversion of the optical power to electrical power on board the platform. In order to provide a strong tether line, the optical fiber is plaited with a jacket braided from high tensile strength fibers. An aerial laser transmitter is described using a ground based laser source transmitting laser power through an optical fiber to an aerial platform for transmission from the platform. The present invention seeks to provide a new lighter-than-air platform, which can carry a payload useful for such tasks as aerial surveillance, target designation, target pointing, laser range finding, wireless relaying, and the like. The system differs in its flight characteristic properties from prior art lighter-than-air systems in that it comprises a novel combination of a separated support balloon and a kite, with the payload on the kite, and the balloon supplying buoyancy to the kite by means of a line attached between the balloon and the kite below it. This differs from prior art balloon/kite combinations, where the balloon and the kite features are built as the same unitary structure. The use of separate
www.npeo-kmi.com
Compiled by KMI Media Group staff
kite and balloon modules provides a level of mechanical isolation of the payload on the kite from the effects of buffeting of the balloon in the wind. This isolation effect can be increased by use of a longer connecting cord, or by use of a flexible section of the connecting cord, such as a spring, or an elastomeric section. The combination kite/balloon also has all of the known advantages of prior art kite/balloon systems, such as the increased altitude achieved by the combination over that of a balloon only, because of the increased dynamic lifting effect of the kite section with increase in wind speed. 11 drawings
of wing structure. Inside the tank, vertical permeable baffle plate of flat, T-shaped cross-section or in the form of girder, channel bar or I-girder is located. The tank can also be made from one outer wing end to the second outer wing end. The reported benefit is improved safety of wing structure. 4 drawings
Multi-Role Aircraft with Interchangeable Mission Modules
Propeller Screw Shchepochkina Ju.A. Country of origin: Russia Language: Russian Vessel propeller screw contains hub with blades placed on propeller shaft. The blades are mutually equally spaced and placed at an angle to shaft longitudinal axis. Each blade is provided with at least one flow diverter which is located on concave/convex side of a blade at an angle to its radial axis. Flow diverter size is increasing in water flow movement direction. The reported benefit is increased thrust of propeller screw. 3 drawings
Integrated Wing Tank V.S. Ermolenko Country of origin: Russia Language: Russian This invention relates to aviation, to wing tanks of aircraft. Wing tank(s) is (are) of the form of leakproof cylinders or cones located in wing intracavity and serves (serve) as longitudinal load bearing element
www.npeo-kmi.com
Abe Karem Country of origin: United States Language English Aircraft development is a capital-intensive and usually lengthy process. Further, because the viability of aircraft depends largely on their weight, conservatism in design can have powerful consequences on the viability of an aircraft. As a result of these two factors and other considerations, any given aircraft tends to be specialized for one role or mission during the design process. At the same time, aircraft are used on and needed for a variety of missions and roles. Aircraft carry different payloads, including for example, passengers, cargo, sensors and munitions. Beyond payload, other requirements can shape an aircraft design; for example, some missions require flight in a certain speed regime, while other missions require high fuel efficiency. Prior art approaches to providing aircraft suitable for conducting specific missions tend to either (i) design a distinct aircraft for a specific mission, (ii) adapt an existing aircraft design for another mission through modifications (iii) attempt to bridge multiple missions in the design stage through an a priori requirement. Each of these three prior art approaches has weaknesses. The first approach, to design a distinct aircraft for a specific mission, is extremely expensive and often impractical. In general, it has the least potential to meet multiple diverse requirements, therefore limiting its market. The second approach, post-hoc adaptation, is often used in adapting aircraft to new missions similar to the original design mission. Even this approach is expensive and time consuming, however. These difficulties arise in part because of formidable certification and qualification requirements. An example of aircraft post-hoc modification is the transformation of the Lockheed L-188 Electra civilian passenger transport into the Lockheed P-3 Orion naval maritime surveillance aircraft. The original mission (passenger transport) and the new mission (maritime surveillance) have similar flight envelope requirements, in terms of speed and altitude. The third general approach, attempting bridge multiple missions in the design stage through an a priori requirement, often entails extraordinary costs and engineering effort. An example of this approach would be the Lockheed Martin F-35 family of supersonic fighter aircraft, attempting commonality between the F-35B short takeoff
april 07, 2015
|
43
Defense Innovations and vertical landing (STOVL) platform, the F-35C carrier based fighter platform, and the F-35A land-based conventional takeoff supersonic fighter platform. The F-35 program is renowned for being billions of dollars over budget and years behind schedule; this results at least in part from attempts to achieve high degrees of commonality among the aircraft in the family. The Boeing competitor to the F-35, as described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,897,078, struggled with similar issues in attempting to bridge diverse mission requirements, while still retaining some degree of parts-commonality among variants. The '078 patent and all other extrinsic materials discussed herein are incorporated by reference in their entirety. Where a definition or use of a term in an incorporated reference is inconsistent or contrary to the definition of that term provided herein, the definition of that term provided herein applies and the definition of that term in the reference does not apply. In summary, aircraft are sometimes designed to be flexible, yet this by-design flexibility can only go so far. Alternatively, different versions of aircraft are designed for specific needs, users, and missions. Only a few prior art aircraft and aircraft related developments known to the inventor have had elements of modularity, and no known prior art aircraft have achieved complete or even extensive modularity. A few cargo aircraft have carried their cargo in removable cargo containers. Notably, the Fairchild XC-120 Packplane, Miles M.68 Boxcar, and Kamov KA-226 are the instances known to the inventor. While these prior art aircraft carry their cargo payload in removable containers, they cannot be said to be truly modular aircraft, because they do not change containers to change missions or roles. These prior art aircraft are really predominantly single-role transport aircraft that happen to carry their cargo in an external container that forms part of the aerodynamic fairing of the aircraft, rather than carrying their cargo in containers internal to the aerodynamic fairing of the aircraft like most air freighters. 7 drawings
Hatch of a Ship Siemens Aktiengesellschaft Country of origin: Germany Language: English The electric current required on board ships docked in harbors is usually generated by on-board diesel engine generator units. During the operation of said diesel engine generator units, not inconsiderable amounts of diesel exhaust gases are generated and these include carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides among other things which are ecologically harmful. Currently there are thoughts of supplying a ship docked in harbor with electric current from onshore (onshore power supply) by means of a flexible power supply line, a so-called cable line. Said electric current is provided by means of an electric power supply network arranged in the harbor and is transferred to the ship by means of the cable line. In this case, it is conceivable to place the cable line over a randomly selected position on the outer skin of the ship (ship's side). However, this could damage the cable line. In addition, such cable lines placed randomly over the side of the ship provide a source of accident (risk of stumbling etc.). This design is for a hatch with an outer wall or skin of a ship includes a guide device for guiding a flexible electrical line through the hatch to provide the ship with electrical power. 5 drawings
Aircraft Under Carriage Front Leg with Integrated Lift and Directing Control Device
OOO Juridicheskaja firma Gorodisskij i Partnery Country of origin: Russia Language: Russian This invention relates to landing gear, particularly, to device intended for control the landing gear in lift and direction. Landing gear led comprises pole composed of two crossbars to make pivot point for leg lifting, rotary pipe and sliding rod translating in rotary pipe in turn axis and provided with wheels at its one end. Rotary pipe is arranged inside said pole to turn relative to pivot axis and to extend beyond lift axis relative to position of wheels. Besides, it comprises the drive of leg rotation relative to lift axis at interaction with airframe and, on opposite side, with thrust point of lift located at a distance from lift axis. Note here that
44
|
April 07, 2015
www.npeo-kmi.com
Compiled by KMI Media Group staff
thrust point located at rotary pipe on the side opposite the wheels relative to lift axis. According to the designers, the effect of this concept is to decrease weight and number of hardware components required for landing gear lift and turn. 1 drawing
High-Speed Vessel Step from Polymer Composites FGUP Krylovskij gosudarstvennyj nauchnyj tsentr Country of origin: Russia Language: Russia This invention relates to ship building, particularly to high-speed boats made of polymer composites. This crosswise hollow step is made of polymer composite comprises outer skin and damping elements composed by at least one plate (horizontally arranged diaphragm) located inside the step between skins of the vessel and step to connect vertical lengthwise diaphragms in height decreasing to vessel fore. Note here that lengthwise diaphragms on top and bottom sides of damping elements are shifted in crosswise direction relative to each other. Lengthwise diaphragms and sidewall with skin and damping elements are glued together with the help of thrust foam plastic to be secured to the skin and damping elements and covered by one or several plies of reinforcing material. Vulcanizing-on angle-pieces are welded on step sidewalls and step skin. Step cavities arranged one above the other in one or two lengthwise cross-sections of the vessel (relative to ship centerline plane) are filled with high-density foam plastic. According to the designers, the effect of this concept is to decrease shock loads, lower drag on rough sea. 5 drawings
Airfield Unit for Emergent Deceleration of Aircraft
Kokorev Gennadij Vasil'evich Country of origin: Russia Language: Russian This proposed device comprises landing strip elevated section. Landing strip section is laid on overpass with boards. Said overpass is equipped with electrically driven winch and transducers for control over aircraft run speed. Aircraft stopped at overpass, said transducers actuated extending brake thrusts and extending barriers. Said overpass is overlapped by six extending brake thrusts and two extending barriers. Stopped aircraft is locked and towed by electrically driven winch to runway. According to the designers, the effect of this concept is for smooth and safe deceleration. 29 drawings
Airborne Vehicle Shchepochkina Ju.A. Country of origin: Russia Language: Russian An aircraft comprises fuselage, control cabin, delta wing, tail plane, engines arranged above said wing and undercarriage. Head parts of the wing and fuselage are connected by hollow prop equipped with rudder arranged between said wing and fuselage. Wing head section hangs over control cabin. Outer wing is arranged above fuselage to retain rear landing gear. Cavities accommodating flywheels running in opposite directions are made in the wing on both sides from central line.
www.npeo-kmi.com
april 07, 2015
|
45
Defense Innovations According to the designers, the effect of this concept is to afford higher lift, mobility and stability. 3 drawings
Device for Launching and Recovering a Towed Sonar
Thales SA Country of origin: France Language: English This design describes a device for launching and recovering a sonar comprising a linear reception antenna and a volume transmission coil incorporated into a volume body referred to as a fish, said sonar being towed by a surface vessel by means of a tow line comprising a towing cable from which the tow fish is suspended, the linear antenna being anchored behind the cable in relation to the vessel, said device comprising a towing winch comprising a chassis secured to the surface vessel and allowing the tow line to be wound onto and paid out from a drum. The drum comprises two runners rotating about an axis of rotation, means of coupling the two parts, the first part having a cylindrical shape onto which the tow line is intended to be wound, the second part forming a first end stop intended to accommodate the tow fish. 14 drawings
46
|
April 07, 2015
Method for Treating Aircraft Structures Rosebank Engineering Pty Ltd. Country of origin: Australia Language: English The fuselages of many aircraft consist of circumferential frame members, longitudinal stringers, and a thin skin, all made from lightweight aluminum. This construction allows for a balance of flight properties and weight. The sheets of aluminum that make up the skin are connected together as lap joints by generally two to three rows of rivets. The outer skin later is countersunk at each rivet location so the rivet head is flush with the skin, resulting in optimal aerodynamic properties. When the skin is subjected to the stresses of normal operation, particularly in pressurized commercial aircraft, fatigue damage can occur in the metal sheets and especially in high stress locations around fasteners. The problem is exacerbated by the ingress of environmental elements and leads to the joint cracking. Crack growth, if left undetected, can lead to catastrophic failure, as in the case of Aloha Airlines Right 243 in 1988. As the aircraft reached its normal flight altitude of 24,000 feet (7,300 m), a small section on the left side of the roof ruptured. The resulting explosive decompression tore off a large section of the roof, consisting of the entire top half of the aircraft skin extending from just behind the cockpit to the fore-wing area. It was subsequently discovered that the incident was caused by the presence of multiple small cracks which arose as a result of environmental degradation of the joint located aft of the front port side passenger door. This phenomenon has subsequently been termed “multisite damage.� This design relates to methods for repairing a structural weakness in an aircraft fuselage, or preventing the advancement of a structural weakness in an aircraft fuselage. Cold spray methods such as supersonic particle deposition have been shown to positively affect structural characteristics of sheet metal and lap joints as used in fuselage construction. 30 drawings
www.npeo-kmi.com
Compiled by KMI Media Group staff
GPS Assisted Torpedo Recovery System Country of origin: United States Language: English This invention relates generally to communications apparatuses and methods, and in particular to a water-based vehicle location system. Underwater vessels, such as unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs) and torpedoes, are used in a variety of military applications, for example, surveillance, reconnaissance, navigation, and defense. Often, it is important to recover UUVs and torpedoes. For example, torpedoes are often deployed but not armed for a variety of military training or strategic purposes. After a UUV or a torpedo has completed its task, it is difficult to locate the underwater vessel because highly accurate global positioning system location systems and radio frequency communications links are not available to underwater vessels. This makes the locating of an underwater vessel inaccurate resulting in a slow recovery and an increased likelihood the underwater vessel will be lost, damaged, or stolen. Accordingly, there is a need and desire for an underwater vessel recovery method and system for providing accurate geo-location information to air, surface and underwater stations thereby enabling the quick retrieval. 9 drawings
a wound capacitor element in a case, there remains a long felt need for a capacitor capable of functioning in high g-force applications.
Ship Propulsion Unit Juridicheskaja firma Gorodisskij i Partnery Country of origin: Russia Language: Russian This design describes a propulsion unit comprising at least one stationary propulsive unit arranged at the ship aft. Propulsive unit comprises a hollow bearing structure secured to ship hull. The chamber has front and rear ends and is secured to bearing structure. Motor is arranged inside said chamber. The shaft has first and second ends. Propeller screw is engaged with motor. The rudder can turn at the chamber rear end. Propulsive unit is arranged to make shaft line form the vertical inclination angle of 1-8 degrees to water line so that chamber front end is located below than chamber rear end relative to waterline. The reported effect is an improvement of propulsion unit on vessels. 3 drawings
Capacitor for High g-Force Applications Country of origin: United States Language: English The present invention is directed to a capacitor capable of withstanding relatively high g-forces, without failure. The invention is particularly useful for electrolytic capacitors having a wound capacitor element. Wound capacitors, such as aluminum electrolytic capacitors, are often used in environments where they are subject to relatively high vibration, impact and centrifugal force. For example, capacitors are commonly incorporated into deep well drilling equipment and the electrical circuitry of aircraft and spacecraft. Typical wound capacitors are rated to withstand g-forces of up to 25 g. Subjecting the capacitor to higher g-forces may result in failure of the capacitor. U.S. Pat. No. 4,584,630 discloses a mounting spacer for an electrolytic capacitor. The mounting spacer is a flexible plastic sheet, which when folded and inserted inside the tubular casing provides alignment and support for the capacitor section. U.S. Pat. No. 4,987,519 discloses an aluminum electrolytic capacitor having a fluoro-plastic member at each end of the capacitor element. An inwardly directed annular bead deforms the case and engages the fluoro-plastic member to create a seal. U.S. Pat. No. 6,307,734 discloses an electrolytic capacitor having a silicone potting compound surrounding the capacitor within the canister (case). Indentation 108 in canister 102 compresses the silicone compound against the capacitor element to maintain the capacitor element firmly in place. US Patent Application No. 2012/0154984 disclose an electrolytic capacitor with a tape material wound around the outside of the capacitor element. The metal case is crimped inward to engage the tape material, thereby fixing the capacitor element in place relative to the case. Despite the various prior art attempts to align, support and stabilize
www.npeo-kmi.com
Harmonized Turret with Multiple Gimbaled Sub-Systems
DRS Sustainment Systems Country of origin: United States Language: English This disclosure is generally related to machine support systems and, in particular, to turret and gimbal support systems for line-of-sight sensors and weapons on military vehicles. On military vehicles, whether ground-, sea-, aircraft-, or spacebased, the placement and orientation of a sensor on a vehicle can be important. A warfighter’s situational awareness, including that used for driving/piloting, collision avoidance, navigation, covert observation, targeting, etc. may depend upon having the best, least obstructed view. A line-of-sight sensor, which includes a sensor that requires an unobstructed line in space to what it is sensing, should not be occluded by the vehicle itself, human operators, large communication antennas, or other protrusions. In general, a novel mounting configuration of multiple slewable pointable devices, such as line-of-sight sensors and weapons, is described. One such example is a gimbaled line-of-sight sensor, which itself can rotate 360 degrees, and a gimbaled gun, which itself can rotate 360.degrees, both mounted on a turret platform that rotates 360 degrees. The gimbals of the sensor and weapon are mounted across from each other, opposite the central pivot point
april 07, 2015
|
47
Defense Innovations of the rotating platform. In operation, if the weapon is in the way of the sensor’s line-of-sight to an off-board target, then the turret is rotated so that the sensor moves out from behind the weapon (and the weapon moves out from front of the sensor). Conversely, if a situation occurs in which the sensor is in the way of the weapon’s line of fire to the target, then the turret is rotated so that the weapon moves out from behind the sensor (and the sensor moves out from front of the weapon). In development, this has been informally called a “lazy Susan design.” This design can be utilized with pointable components that require 360-degree un-obstructed, line-of-sight capability without any “dead zones.” For example, radars, lasers, and rocket-based weapon systems can be used together. Two sensors can be used together, or two weapons can be used together. 12 drawings
The present disclosure relates to aerial delivery, particularly delivery achieved via mid-air extraction from an aircraft, and systems and related methods. 20 drawings
Carrier Ship Having a Cargo Space that can be Flooded
Aerial Delivery System with Munition Adapter and Latching Release
Roy Fox Country of origin: United States Language: English Aerial delivery is a term used to describe extracting an item from an aircraft in flight and then enabling a safe recovery of the item by use of an aerodynamic decelerator, which is most often a parachute system. Additionally, the aerial delivery operation is typically conducted from a cargo-type aircraft. The process may utilize very specific aerial delivery equipment and may adhere to very specific aerial delivery operational procedures. Often, the extracted item consists of an aerial delivery system containing cargo of some sort. Two general types of extraction are utilized. Gravity extraction is the technique of using positive aircraft pitch angle, or by using some other force to cause the item to simply roll or slide out of the aircraft, which is typically followed by a parachute being deployed by a lanyard that is anchored to the aircraft. Parachute extraction is a technique whereby a parachute is first deployed out the rear of the cargo compartment, and the parachute is used to pull the item from the aircraft. Both techniques may conform to guidelines regarding length, weight, mass, etc., of the item being extracted in order to achieve a safe extraction operation. Generally speaking, relatively short and/or relatively lightweight items may be gravity extracted, but relatively long and/or relatively heavy items may preferably be parachute extracted, which removes the item from the aircraft quickly to prevent it from adversely affecting the aircraft’s center of balance.
48
|
April 07, 2015
Trautwein Albrecht Country of origin: Germany Language: German The invention relates to a carrier ship having at least one cargo space, which is laterally bounded by two longitudinal walls extending in a longitudinal direction of the carrier ship, wherein the cargo space extends substantially over the entire length of the carrier ship and is flooded, such that freight in the cargo space can be transported in a floating manner. At least one of the longitudinal walls can be opened at least nearly completely or at least in a plurality of partial pieces, such that freight can be floated laterally into the flooded cargo space. 6 drawings
www.npeo-kmi.com
Compiled by KMI Media Group staff
Coupling Device, Coupling System, and Towing System, and Method for Uncoupling and Coupling an Unmanned Underwater Vehicle Atlas Elektronik GMBH Country of origin: Germany Language German The invention relates to a coupling device for uncoupling an unmanned underwater vehicle and then coupling said unmanned underwater vehicle again, comprising a data-transferring and an energytransferring towing-cable receptacle and a data-transferring and an energy-transferring underwater-vehicle receptacle, wherein the coupling device comprises a part of a coupling apparatus and a part of an underwater positioning system. The invention further relates to a method for uncoupling an unmanned underwater vehicle from a towing system and coupling said unmanned underwater vehicle to said towing system, wherein the coupling device and the unmanned water vehicle are below a water surface during towing and the method comprises the steps of uncoupling the unmanned water vehicle, subsequent performance of a mission the uncoupled unmanned water vehicle, and then coupling the unmanned underwater vehicle to the coupling device. 1 drawing
that assists the penetration by reducing the resistance forces. This type of warhead is typically made of three sections: (1) a front section, or nose, which is usually in the shape of an ogive or cone; (2) the main section which includes the explosive charge and is usually cylindrical; and (3) the aft section which seals the explosive charge within the casing and holds a penetration fuse for explosive charge initiation. The warhead which is typically a hollow cylindrically shaped casing, made of high strength steel. Inside the hollow casing lies the explosive charge, and in the rear end of the warhead the penetration fuse is installed. This fuse is designed to initiate the explosive charge at the proper moment, typically, at some predetermined time after the warhead encounters the target. In penetration warheads, special care is given to the design of the forward penetration nose. The penetration nose must withstand considerable loads, and also, guides the warhead’s path through the target (being the first part of the warhead to come in contact with the target), with minimal drag forces. The most widespread approach for penetration nose design is to use a conical or an ogive nose. The present invention is to a penetration warhead having a conical nose and structural ribs along the circumference of the nose. The special penetration cone design gives the warhead the following characteristics: • High durability due to reduced stress while penetrating several/ layered structural targets, without a significant increase in weight. • Correction of the penetration path, minimizing the “J effect,” while penetrating several/layered structural targets which increases the potential penetration depth. • Minimizing ricochet of the warhead off structural targets and assists in target penetration, when shallow approach angles and high angles of attack are reached. • Decreasing the accelerations acting on the rear part of the warhead, thus decreasing the loads on the penetration fuse (located in the rear of the warhead).
Missile Warhead Israeli Military Industries Ltd. Country of origin: Israel Language: English The present invention relates to missile warheads especially unguided warheads designed to penetrate hard targets and in particular multiple wall targets. Warheads are often required to penetrate hard concrete or steel targets of either one or multiple layers (walls) and to explode afterwards inside a target cavity. Such warheads have an ogive or a conical nose
www.npeo-kmi.com
Radar Surveillance System Selex ES Ltd. Country of origin: United Kingdom Language: English The invention relates to a radar surveillance system. More specifically but not exclusively it relates to maritime surveillance radar designed to detect small targets.
april 07, 2015
|
49
Defense Innovations In maritime surveillance radar, the key objective is to distinguish actual targets from apparent targets. Apparent targets, or ‘false alarms’ are those that may be caused, by a radar reflection of the sea surface being categorized as a potential target, when no real object is present. This problem has been the subject of much research over the past 70 years. The problem is essentially achieving a robust decision criterion, based on the mathematical probability that a particular reflection from the area under surveillance is or is not a target. In conventional maritime surveillance radars, the antenna produces a fixed beam shape, which is scanned over the area of interest, up to and including complete 360-degree coverage, in the azimuth plane. Such systems then use non-coherent azimuth integration of amplitude information reflected from this area of interest to determine the threshold for declaration of target or not. Typical existing processing schemes to statistically address this question include, but are not limited to, thresholding the data after area averaging, applying an M out of N detection criteria, or thresholding post azimuth filtering. In such maritime radar detection, the key discriminant is the amplitude correlation of the target, if present, during the dwell time, compared with the amplitude correlation of the background sea clutter return. Hence if both target and sea clutter returns are each highly correlated, a mathematically sound, automatic test hypothesis is difficult, if not impossible to achieve. This results in either many false targets being displayed or real targets being suppressed. Both conditions are unacceptable as operator workload and search time can become excessive in trying to achieve the functional role of target detection. 4 drawings
Recovering Capsized Watercraft Incorporating Rapid Filling and Emptying Ballast Systems
Rubber Ducky IP Pty Ltd Country of origin: Australia Language: English In many water borne activities, water crafts, such as jet boats and rescue craft, are used to move people and/or objects across the water. The agility and power of such smaller vessels make them attractive for water sports enthusiasts and thrill-seekers, for example. However, they may be generally unsuitable for military use as they may not be adapted for long deployment, nor be adapted to cope with the various weather conditions prevalent at sea. The speed at which smaller craft can travel makes them comparatively less stable than larger craft, such as navy frigates and destroyers, especially in rough water. As a craft increases its velocity, the chance it will capsize can increase. This is particularly the case for jet boats and other forms of speed boat, and the capsized craft can be very difficult to right—return to an upright position—in order to continue moving. Devices have been designed to improve the stability of the craft in the water, such as canting keels, which comprise a torpedo shaped ballast body at the tip of an aerofoil. The moment of the ballast body on the aerofoil is generally greater than that of the craft, and capsizing is thereby prevented. However, when travelling normally, the ballast is a deadweight which slows the craft, and such designs are generally impractical for use in faster boats, such as jet boats, as they reduce the speed and agility which make those craft attractive to use. Few practical designs are capable of preventing capsizing. It is, therefore, generally desirable to provide a craft that is capable of righting. 19 drawings
System for Carrying and Dropping Loads for a Transport Airplane MBDA Country of origin: France Language: English Within the field of the present method, system and device, the term load means any object able to be carried and dropped from a plane. These could be particularly drones, freight, etc. Preferably, a load corresponds to a piece of ammunition which, within the framework of the present method, system and device, means a missile- or
50
|
April 07, 2015
www.npeo-kmi.com
Compiled by KMI Media Group staff
bomb-type projectile. Preferably, such projectile is part of a usual weapon system with a military load and is provided with a propelling system and guiding means adapted to fly it and guide it toward a target to be damaged or destroyed. This can be particularly a guided bomb or a cruising missile. The present disclosure relates more precisely to a carrying and dropping system for a military transport plane, wherein carrying the missile is performed in the plane cargo compartment and dropping is implemented through an opening arranged in the back the plane. Numerous dropping systems are known, which generally use a parachute for dropping a piece of ammunition being carried on board. In such a case, the parachute being fastened to the piece of ammunition is in general inflated in the back of the plane so as to bring the piece of ammunition toward the back outside the plane. 7 drawings
Shielding for a Gas Turbine Engine Component
Rolls Royce North American Technologies Country of origin: United States Language: English Increasing the efficiency and performance of gas turbine engines remains an area of interest. Some existing systems have various shortcomings relative to certain applications. Accordingly, there remains a need for further contributions in this area of technology. One embodiment of the present application includes a hot section component of a gas turbine engine having a covering. The covering includes a protrusion and is attached to the hot section component though a flexible retainer. In one form the covering is made from ceramic matrix composite. The flexible retainer has a closed position and an open position. The retainer secures the protrusion to the hot section component when it engages part of the protrusion when in the closed position.
Limiting Mechanism Nevskoe proektnokonstruktorskoe bjuro Country of origin: Russia Language: Russian This design pertains to an aircraft ammunition storage limiting mechanism consisting of stopper, slider, thrust lever, handle, stopper support, tie-rods and locknuts. Ammunition fixation on the shelf is executed by means of a stopper. The stopper is made of a rod terminated in its upper part by a cross piece for the tackle groove of products. The stopper is capable of turning and moving vertically due to an actuated handle. The handle is connected with tie-rods kinematically connected to the slider via a thrust lever. The lever, in its turn, rests on locknuts to move the stopper down thus creating a pressing force in the product groove and fixing it in place. According to the designers, the effect of this concept is the creation of a limiting mechanism allowing the retention of aircraft ammunition, of complex configuration, on existing storing facilities in conditions of vessel rolling. 6 drawings
System for Repair and Servicing of Underwater Production Complexes in Ice Conditions FGUP Krylovskij gosudarstvennyj nauchnyj tsentr Country of origin: Russia Language: Russian This proposed system comprises a carrier craft to be submerged from support vessel which is equipped with underwater robot connected with said surface support vessel via power cable, control cable and preventer. Driving ballast tanks, shaped to circular sectors, have vent valves arranged on top and sea grates at the bottom. Equalizing ballast tanks are additionally incorporated with this system. Said tanks are interconnected by equally-spaced rigid split fas-
www.npeo-kmi.com
april 07, 2015
|
51
Defense Innovations teners around the outer edges (located equidistant from said circular hull center) to make a circular hull of underwater carrier craft. The carrier craft is equipped with compressed air cylinders, manipulators, their control unit and propulsion-steering complex composed by rotary propulsors with drives, compressed air systems and equalizing ballast. Support vessel hull has underwater carrier craft and robot up and down silo. According to the designers, the effect of this concept is to enhanced operating performances. 6 drawings
of mines, which can then be neutralized, typically by explosives. Magnetic sweeps typically simulate a ship's magnetic signature, thus causing the mine to detonate. Magnetic influence minesweeper methods generate an electromagnetic current to create a magnetic field that simulates the magnetic signature created by the passage of a ship, thus “tricking� the magnetic influence mine to detonate. A node in the electromagnetic current typically is an electrode connected to a cable that is towed by a vessel or helicopter, usually in saltwater. Saltwater is conductive, and thusly can act as a leg in an electrical circuit when conducting a magnetic sweep. Saltwater is also corrosive, and it is especially corrosive to electrodes, where the electrode is in contact with an electrical current, saltwater, sun, and air. With open loop sweeps, the electrodes are in contact with at least three of these. This design describes an improved corrosion-resistant magnetic influence minesweeping cable. The cable produces a magnetic field that simulates a ship’s magnetic signature as the ship passes through the sea. It has an outer anode conductor made of titaniumclad copper with mixed metal oxide at its aft end, an outer cathode conductor made of nickel-clad copper at its forward end, an inner conductor made of aluminum that runs the length of the cable, and a steel core strength member that also runs the length of the cable. The outer anode conductor is in electrical contact with the inner conductor. The outer cathode conductor is insulated from the inner conductor. The outer cathode conductor and the inner conductor can be connected to an electrical power source onboard a towing vessel. 7 drawings
Corrosion Resistant Minesweeping Cable US Navy Country of origin: United States Language: English There are many types of mines used to damage and destroy marine vessels. Magnetic influence mines detonate on sensing a change in the ambient magnetic field. The proliferation of relatively inexpensive mines makes Mine Countermeasures (MCM) a necessary and expensive challenge to counter the proliferation. Minesweeping has historically been conducted by ships with nonmagnetic bottoms (i.e., wood, fiber-glass). However, even ships with a nonmagnetic bottom have a magnetic signature, and this magnetic signature can be detected by influence mines having a sensor that detects changes in the magnetic environment. More recently, aircraft (helicopters) and remotely controlled unmanned vessels have been employed to conduct minesweeping. Examples of minesweeping methods include mechanical sweeps, acoustic sweeps, and magnetic sweeps. Mechanical sweeps are designed to sever the cables of moored mines with explosives or abrasives. Acoustic sweeps are typically used to locate the positions
52
|
April 07, 2015
High Burning Rate Tactical Solid Rocket Propellant
US Navy Country of origin: United States Language: English The present invention relates generally to solid rocket propellants, and more particularly to solid rocket propellants, which have a burn rate that is normally only achievable with a Class 1.1 explosive, but have the safety of a Class 1.3 explosive.
www.npeo-kmi.com
Compiled by KMI Media Group staff
A Class 1 explosive is any substance or article, including a device, which is designed to function by explosion (i.e., an extremely rapid release of gas and heat) or, which by chemical reaction within itself, is able to function in a similar manner even if not designed to function by explosion, unless the substance or article is otherwise classed under provision of 49 CFR 173.50. Class 1 explosives are divided into six divisions as follows: Division 1.1 consists of explosives that have a mass explosion hazard. Division 1.2 consists of explosives that have a projection hazard but not a mass explosion hazard. Division 1.3 consists of explosives that have a fire hazard and either a minor blast hazard or minor projection hazard or both, but not a mass explosion hazard, that is, a mass non-detonable hazard rating. Classes 1.4-1.6 are slower burning explosives and are not suitable for rocket propellants. A need exists for extending the linear burning-rate of tactical (i.e., Class 1, Division 3, or Class 1.3) composite solid rocket propellants for standard ship-borne missiles. The control of burning rate may be viewed as an aspect of energy management, or how the energy initially stored within the solid-propellant charge is allowed to be released. 16 drawings
Long before macro-fouling occurs on optical devices, biofilm formation becomes problematic. Protective coatings are used on optical surfaces of underwater vehicles primarily for their water shedding capabilities upon surfacing. The coatings in current use are generally hydrophobic, meaning they cause water to shed off an optical device similar to rain drops sliding off leaves. Unfortunately, even with the hydrophobic coatings on optical devices, biofilms tend to form and the coatings lose their hydrophobicity and the affected optical devices lose their optical clarity. In stationary seawater, biofilms can form within two weeks. Attempts to create coatings that are optically clear, hydrophobic and antifouling have thus far proven to be unsuccessful. This invention relates to the removal of biofilms which form on outer surfaces of underwater optical devices. Despite the use of protective coatings on such optical devices to inhibit the growth of biofilms thereon, in due course biofilms adhere to the optical devices. The invention is directed to determining the adhesive strength of biofilms on protective coatings on such optical devices, and to determining what water pressures and water jet configurations and velocities are required to remove the biofilms and restore clarity to the optical device. 3 drawings
Determining the Adhesive Strength of Biofilms on Underwater Protective Coatings U.S. Navy Country of origin: United States Language: English Biofilm formation on underwater optical devices constitutes an initial step in the process of biofouling. Microorganisms, such as diatoms and bacteria, form colonies on surfaces in seawater. Once a biofilm is established, it serves as a foundation for barnacle larvae, ulna spores (“green sea lettuce”), and other macro-fouling organisms to settle, attach, and grow into macro-fouling colonies.
www.npeo-kmi.com
april 07, 2015
|
53